Re: [Gen-art] [Perc] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-perc-double-10

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Wed, 15 May 2019 17:16 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0981B1203A0; Wed, 15 May 2019 10:16:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cooperw.in header.b=HQtpogfe; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=pPfNLJTh
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 23EL--E4djrx; Wed, 15 May 2019 10:16:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39D3A120384; Wed, 15 May 2019 10:16:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDFCD390; Wed, 15 May 2019 13:16:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 15 May 2019 13:16:44 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h= from:message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; s=fm3; bh=Y6+pGdIk8TJi6AQi9hnms4+ YkxIMA+oes8rBRTJIkN0=; b=HQtpogfeMR1ZQB2QwkF2sn0ifViVQkU1MYvYXvA HHLF6Vzs8eglLeE023Cpkl8MPtZJ5C796P0ya+xZiuAWiCkXVBDmY63PsX8JHNsa MjTYp2bqsz+SQ7LB9ecKTA3BpMY7zBL8T5XDiBcd2fU0lcxJvOCqsrRluU0PuGhb jL9SFBM0wflCbxXcvK3iT4Hb2QEA0SZYayHnV5G8rYxfG2hZ9oY3s6O0r0YkMd0Q 35Qbdum8YaWRXwsZlsIt4qVZvrZEL6LfFblfFD5NclySDpXJ/EonPayFX26oIItO TIGtUbvCPK+a/3lgnuVYvDGYwChydBUfFr1KgVmRzCAJV9Q==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=Y6+pGd Ik8TJi6AQi9hnms4+YkxIMA+oes8rBRTJIkN0=; b=pPfNLJThwGzGBTHljGoGai ozpK9pAvBfV4FwCQFe1zBU2m/8USRGRtqQ9/zxb9O39eFYMko9WMETF68jJQzCSl S/uCTZxEaf5qaURVE15p70u0h0Sg9Gv9308muJAd80cYJo9kwlXRUeaktuXan/yW /mFs8hY51mJrx7hZdTc/2ZlvxBUbcYMFOe6oIzZEOOW40xNTyL/BqF9bY9XHeNId pOkEtH5s9qJm1cwIhM+8+MahtCnoAvK0InP+D0FVn/1LWd7nA9qG8BdKXbGyAyU0 K1attLoYy/E0SPD8kds5F+ehGVesrTuE+UiN0iEnzBmYotj3je9OlFhRuOii0/PQ ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:ekncXEvHwBeTrBFcSYa_x1mbvUeiXsubKyKjISQdg1hX03ZavnZGTw>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduuddrleekgddutdegucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffktgggufffjgfvfhfosegrtdhmrehhtdejnecuhfhrohhmpeetlhhishhs rgcuvehoohhpvghruceorghlihhsshgrsegtohhophgvrhifrdhinheqnecuffhomhgrih hnpehgihhthhhusgdrtghomhdpihgvthhfrdhorhhgpdhirghnrgdrohhrghenucfkphep udejfedrfeekrdduudejrdekleenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomheprghlihhssh grsegtohhophgvrhifrdhinhenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:ekncXNc6_vNF8s_oFZ9NrLlvAaAbVz2BzD0XPZM3v9CGjlXPwEUf7g> <xmx:ekncXB-IE39t9rIhtBXnPZqdAGJ_RaOtO_QCHpsTDn_9g2SIXxveOQ> <xmx:ekncXISv5Dh8DOflOLFVbne_AXhoI86qX8iMZGcNQNW6YMelSRLvUQ> <xmx:e0ncXOaltk2WpOfo2Tv04ENzbdbDeHTsEvz7EPq-b3iNlEt3z6O5ww>
Received: from rtp-alcoop-nitro5.cisco.com (unknown [173.38.117.89]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 3D9C78005B; Wed, 15 May 2019 13:16:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Message-Id: <AC7DDC3B-780B-431B-9550-CF2FDE0C0087@cooperw.in>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A54CC247-1386-421D-B04E-673F5A4EB95E"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 13:16:40 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAL02cgT84eG7Tkj0XFTBCSutg0+8HEk99-h_5fSU_ofqydxb6w@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: IETF Gen-ART <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-perc-double.all@ietf.org, perc@ietf.org, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
To: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
References: <154002385712.13693.18098361756799542976@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAL02cgT84eG7Tkj0XFTBCSutg0+8HEk99-h_5fSU_ofqydxb6w@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/KD2inPdHx_dEWYz_Wse3KiNTDds>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [Perc] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-perc-double-10
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 17:16:52 -0000

Russ, thanks for your review. Richard, thanks for your response. I entered a Yes ballot. The IANA registration looks fine to me — we did the early registration with just the same fields as specified in the document.

Alissa

> On Dec 19, 2018, at 11:46 AM, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>; wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the review, Russ.  Comments below (nothing major); pull request here for your review:
> 
> https://github.com/ietf/perc-wg/pull/163 <https://github.com/ietf/perc-wg/pull/163>
> 
> On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 4:24 AM Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com <mailto:housley@vigilsec.com>> wrote:
> Reviewer: Russ Housley
> Review result: Almost Ready
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>>;.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-perc-double-10
> Reviewer: Russ Housley
> Review Date: 2018-10-20
> IETF LC End Date: 2018-11-01 
> IESG Telechat date: unknown
> 
> Summary: Almost Ready
> 
> 
> Major Concerns:
> 
> Section 10: Doesn't the IANA registry needs to specify the PRF to be
> used with the ciphersuite as well?
> 
> I don't think so.  I don't see a slot in the relevant registry for that, and the tabular summary in the IANA considerations section is really just a courtesy.
> 
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/srtp-protection/srtp-protection.xhtml#srtp-protection-1 <https://www.iana.org/assignments/srtp-protection/srtp-protection.xhtml#srtp-protection-1>
>  
> 
> Minor Concerns:
> 
> Section 3: It would be useful to explain the Master Key before the
> reader gets to Section 3.1.
> 
> Note that the "master key" concept comes from SRTP.  I've added a bit of text to clarify.
> 
>  
> Section 3.1: It is unclear what assistance is provided by the
> additional level of indirection:
> 
>          PRF_double_n(k_master,x) = PRF_inner_(n/2)(k_master,x) ||
>                                     PRF_outer_(n/2)(k_master,x)
> 
>          PRF_inner_n(k_master,x)  = PRF_n(inner(k_master),x)
>          PRF_outer_n(k_master,x)  = PRF_n(outer(k_master),x)
> 
> It could just say:
> 
>          PRF_double_n(k_master,x) = PRF_(n/2)(inner(k_master),x) ||
>                                     PRF_(n/2)(outer(k_master),x)
> 
> 👍  
> 
> Not sure what I was thinking.
> 
>  
> Section 4: I suggest:
> 
>         If the marker bit is not present, then B MUST be set to zero.
> 
> 👍
>  
> Section 5, 1st paragraph: and endpoint cannot verify confidentiality.
> 
> Well, it can verify that the packet was encrypted with a key known only to the endpoints.  But OK.
>  
> 
> Nits:
> 
> The document uses "encryption" and "confidentiality" interchanagably.
> Encryption is a mechanism or algorithm.  Confidentiality is a security
> service.  While I do not think that the reader will be confused by the
> current wording, it would be better to use the terms properly.  In
> addition, it is misleading to say:
> 
>    ... the receiving endpoint that can encrypt and authenticate ....
> 
> because the sending endpoint encrypts, and the recieving endpoints
> decrypts.  Also, the receiving endpoints check the authentication tag.
> 
> That's actually just some bad grammar.  Reworded.
> 
>  
> Abstract: s/authenticated encryption with associated data/
>            /authenticated encryption with associated data (AEAD)/
> 
> Abstract: s/scheme/algorithm/
> 
> Section 5.2: s/GCM/AES-GCM/
> 
> Section 7: s/HBH/hop-by-hop/
> 
> Section 7: s/E2E/end-to-end/
> 
> Section 7.1: s/HBH/hop-by-hop/
> 
> Section 7.2: The text is redundant.  I suggest "etc" be dropped from
> "such as SSRC, SEQ, CSRC, etc"
> 
> Section 7.2: s/non primary/non-primary/
> 
> Section 7.3: s/HBH/hop-by-hop/
> 
> Implemented all of the above...
>  
> Appendix A: s/HBH/hop-by-hop/
> 
> Appendix A: s/E2E/end-to-end/
> 
> ... but I'm going to leave these last two as-is, for brevity. 
> _______________________________________________
> Perc mailing list
> Perc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perc