Re: [dtn] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-dtn-bpsec-18: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]>]

Having a normative reference would address my discuss. However given that draft-ietf-dtn-bpsec-interop-sc is short, may I ask to consider merging the two docs? I know that means a bit of delay as we would probably need to redo some of the last calls, however, if there is no specific rush, maybe these few extra weeks are not such a big issue?

Mirja



> On 17. Feb 2020, at 10:18, Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Adding the Sec ADs to this discussion. To resolve the whole chain of security
> related issues here.
> 
> I don't see any major issue with the below plan except for how we handle the
> fact that there will not be an automatic key-exchange available for DTN nodes
> immediately and that this is only in the WG's plans. 
> 
> Is there anything better we can do than to promise to update either BPSec or the
> interoperability security context document with the automatic key-exchange
> solution when it is available? Or is the whole of the DTN work going to hang in
> the RFC-editor queue until those components are available? I would really like
> to avoid that. 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Magnus
> 
> 
> On Mon, 2020-02-17 at 04:17 +0000, Birrane, Edward J. wrote:
>> Ran,
>> 
>>  I do recall that you made this same point at one of the DTNWG meetings.  
>> 
>>  It seems the desired way forward would be to 
>> 
>> 1. Take the current bpsec interoperability security contexts document (draft-
>> ietf-dtn-bpsec-interop-sc) and make it a normative reference in bpsec.
>> 2. State in the new section 9.1 of BpSec that the interop security contexts
>> are mandatory-to-implement.
>> 3. Put the interop security contexts into the review cycle (they are in WG
>> last call at this point, I believe).
>> 
>> Would this be a satisfactory outcome?
>> 
>> -Ed
>> 
>> 
>> Edward J. Birrane, III, Ph.D.
>> Embedded Applications Group Supervisor
>> Principal Staff, Space Exploration Sector
>> Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory
>> (W) 443-778-7423 / (F) 443-228-3839
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dtn <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of R. Atkinson
>> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2020 5:17 PM
>> To: DTN WG <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: [EXT] Re: [dtn] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-dtn-bpsec-18: 
>> (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>> 
>> APL external email warning: Verify sender [e-mail] before clicking
>> links or attachments 
>> 
>> All,
>> 
>> I think it quite reasonable for the WG to define at least one "mandatory-to-
>> implement" (i.e., NOT mandatory to use) set of security algorithms/modes for
>> BPsec — and I think it quite reasonable for the IESG to require that the WG
>> make such a choice.
>> 
>> The IETF has at least 30 years of experience that if at least one “mandatory-
>> to-implement” security profile is NOT required/specified, then non-
>> interoperability is the actual result.  In this case, non-interoperability
>> would mean that two different systems who DO wish to use BPsec between
>> themselves actually cannot use it — because of disjoint algorithms/modes
>> having been implemented in the different implementations.
>> 
>> I’m not terribly particular about which algorithms/modes the WG picks,
>> although choosing algorithms/modes readily available in open-source libraries
>> (for example: the OpenSSL library) does simplify life for implementers.
>> 
>> Yours,
>> 
>> Ran
>> 
>>> On Feb 11, 2020, at 11:37, Mehmet Adalier <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> While it is possible to find such a minimal requirement, I do not believe
>>> that one is required at the BPsec protocol level.
>>> I'd also like to recommend that the BPsec RFC does not specify a "minimum"
>>> interoperability context.
>>> 
>>> Depending on the use-case, interoperable contexts can be defined as other
>>> specifications. 
>>> 
>>> An example is appropriate CCSDS books which indicate interoperable contexts.
>>> . Another example is the International Communication System Interoperability
>>> Standards (ICSIS).
>>> 
>>> Mehmet
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2/11/20, 4:04 AM, "dtn on behalf of Mirja Kuehlewind" <
>>> [e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>   Hi Ed,
>>> 
>>>   Thanks for the new text section 9.1. Reading this text I would to confirm
>>> one more thing: I understand that the best choice for the security context
>>> can be very different, however, the point of interoperability is to have at
>>> least one available, that might not be optimal but it better than none.
>>> Having one common security context required would also simply mean that each
>>> implementation would need to support that and therefore it becomes much
>>> easier for people to reply BPSec if the provided one is suitable. Is it not
>>> possible to find such a minimal requirement?
>>> 
>>>   Mirja
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 8. Feb 2020, at 01:23, Birrane, Edward J. <[e-mail]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Mirja,
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you for the review. I have updated a new version of BPSEC  (BPSEC20)
>>>> which attempts to address your DISCUSS and COMMENTS below.
>>>> 
>>>> Specific comments are in-line below.  I have enumerated the Discuss items
>>>> as **D# and the comment items as **C# to aid in referencing these points
>>>> going forward.
>>>> 
>>>> -Ed
>>>> 
>>>> ---
>>>> Edward J. Birrane, III, Ph.D.
>>>> Embedded Applications Group Supervisor Space Exploration Sector Johns 
>>>> Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory
>>>> (W) 443-778-7423 / (F) 443-228-3839
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
>>>>> Sent: Monday, February 03, 2020 6:17 AM
>>>>> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
>>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; Scott Burleigh 
>>>>> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; 
>>>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>>>> Subject: [EXT] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-dtn-bpsec-18: 
>>>>> (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>>>>> 
>>>>> APL external email warning: Verify sender [e-mail] before 
>>>>> clicking links or attachments
>>>>> 
>>>>> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
>>>>> draft-ietf-dtn-bpsec-18: Discuss
>>>>> 
>>>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to 
>>>>> all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to 
>>>>> cut this introductory paragraph, however.)
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please refer to 
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>>>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dtn-bpsec/
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> --
>>>>> DISCUSS:
>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> --
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sec 1.2 says:
>>>>> "A sample security
>>>>> context has been defined ([I-D.ietf-dtn-bpsec-interop-sc]) to 
>>>>> support  interoperability testing and serve as an exemplar for how 
>>>>> security  contexts should be defined for this specification."
>>>>> However I don't really understand how interoperability can be 
>>>>> reached if there is not at least one security context that is 
>>>>> mandatory to implement in this draft (especially as 
>>>>> ietf-dtn-bpsec-interop-sc is expired for more than half a year
>>>>> already)...?
>>>> 
>>>> **D1: I have added a new Section 9.1 to BPSEC20 which describes the
>>>> desired approach to BPSec and security contexts.  I have also updated
>>>> ietf-dtn-bpsec-interop-sc which should be going into WG last call.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> --
>>>>> COMMENT:
>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> --
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please use the updated disclaimer in rfc8174.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> **C1: Agreed. The disclaimer has been updated in BPSEC20.
>>>> 
>>>> -Ed
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>   _______________________________________________
>>>   dtn mailing list
>>>   [e-mail]
>>>   https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dtn mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> dtn mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn
>> _______________________________________________
>> dtn mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn
> -- 
> Cheers
> 
> Magnus Westerlund 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Networks, Ericsson Research
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ericsson AB                 | Phone  [phone]
> Torshamnsgatan 23           | Mobile [phone]
> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [e-mail]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>