[dtn-interest] Re(2): Comments on RFC 5050

Peter Lovell <plovell@mac.com> Mon, 24 June 2013 19:47 UTC

Return-Path: <plovell@mac.com>
X-Original-To: dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F013621F9CE7 for <dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 12:47:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.203
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K-x7OLdYCPR1 for <dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 12:47:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from st11p00mm-asmtp004.mac.com (st11p00mm-asmtpout004.mac.com [17.172.81.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A506621F9AA9 for <dtn-interest@irtf.org>; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 12:47:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.153] (pool-96-255-23-125.washdc.fios.verizon.net [96.255.23.125]) by st11p00mm-asmtp004.mac.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-27.04(7.0.4.27.3) 64bit (built Mar 7 2013)) with ESMTPSA id <0MOW00MKRXM9NW40@st11p00mm-asmtp004.mac.com> for dtn-interest@irtf.org; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 19:47:01 +0000 (GMT)
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.10.8794, 1.0.431, 0.0.0000 definitions=2013-06-24_05:2013-06-24, 2013-06-24, 1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=6.0.2-1305010000 definitions=main-1306240189
From: Peter Lovell <plovell@mac.com>
To: Amy Alford <aloomis@sarn.org>, Michael Noisternig <michael.noisternig@cased.de>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 15:46:58 -0400
Message-id: <20130624194658.1778309085@smtp.mail.me.com>
In-reply-to: <CAB9rx+-tHKKOuUTyudxdZRcWv2ev39jRDDW1hQLZ4=VqzFfeuw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <51C0239C.5080104@cased.de> <A5BEAD028815CB40A32A5669CF737C3B235FFDAC@ap-embx-sp40.RES.AD.JPL> <51C81350.1000606@cased.de> <CAB9rx+9Y3rXvytmk9bW-fbzOz=eL+UBntcuzkS_Mn7T9V0wW3Q@mail.gmail.com> <51C89801.20004@cased.de> <CAB9rx+-tHKKOuUTyudxdZRcWv2ev39jRDDW1hQLZ4=VqzFfeuw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: CTM PowerMail version 6.1.5 build 4654 English (intel) <http://www.ctmdev.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: dtn-interest@irtf.org
Subject: [dtn-interest] Re(2): Comments on RFC 5050
X-BeenThere: dtn-interest@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The Delay-Tolerant Networking Research Group \(DTNRG\) - Announce." <dtn-interest.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/dtn-interest>, <mailto:dtn-interest-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/dtn-interest>
List-Post: <mailto:dtn-interest@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dtn-interest-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest>, <mailto:dtn-interest-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 19:47:10 -0000

Amy Alford <aloomis@sarn.org> wrote:

>Dictionary entries in extension blocks aren't protected by PIB or PCB.  An
>ESB ciphersuite that provided integrity would protect any extension block
>it was applied to.  There isn't a PIB equivalent for extension blocks (if
>there were, it would be what you would use to protect dictionary entries
>for an extension block (as well as the block contents)).  A revision to
>6257 will probably provide a PIB equivalent for extension blocks.

ESB is quite capable of providing PIB-like protection to extension blocks.

The existing sample ciphersuite provides confidentiality (PCB-style) but there's no reason that different ESB ciphersuite couldn't provide PIB-like protection. It's all up to the ciphersuite definition. ESB is not limited to confidentiality.

Regards.....Peter