Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-18
Miika Komu <miika.komu@ericsson.com> Tue, 27 February 2018 11:18 UTC
Return-Path: <miika.komu@ericsson.com>
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 003B91273B1 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 03:18:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.32
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.32 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ericsson.com
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 Tfn6PAKGlggR for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 03:18:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sesbmg23.ericsson.net (sesbmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.37]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D3CB12783A for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 03:18:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=ericsson.com; s=mailgw201801; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt; i=@ericsson.com; t=1519730307; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:CC:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=lL4fwM8RvFSu5HHsbpRYpgTt8WioSgm8a+hrO+hSinU=; b=QHCvHDf4Z/IFRrJkrljQtx+Jnq8rAnKHpVvl3qnaQdi1gj/FOl9NqMP+VMBEPko9 PWeG3EPqrUNoqLKsmsjIuLtR2J3gY4BQCIB2Ef/dS+ULqRjPLw2B/687pkj3+JPI kUCkOt3nGJX4ytAAvr5+e63ZAOskmUSS1q03UudjMn4=;
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-083ff70000002d5f-b3-5a953e834163
Received: from ESESSHC023.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.87]) by sesbmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id C3.C2.11615.38E359A5; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 12:18:27 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [131.160.51.186] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.89) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.352.0; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 12:18:27 +0100
To: "jmh.direct" <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com>, Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, gen-art@ietf.org
CC: draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis.all@ietf.org, hipsec@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
References: <34.48.17338.F3C149A5@sessmg11.ericsson.net>
From: Miika Komu <miika.komu@ericsson.com>
Organization: Ericsson AB
Message-ID: <30a11644-ebb9-54e8-2d2e-465a0f35852c@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 13:18:26 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <34.48.17338.F3C149A5@sessmg11.ericsson.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrDLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2J7uG6z3dQog22tMhbnThxjtbj66jOL xdRFk5ktnm2cz2KxbdF6ZouPp94wObB5LFnyk8nj3JTvjAFMUVw2Kak5mWWpRfp2CVwZU4/N Yyw4n1pxqH8LcwPj2ZAuRk4OCQETiYlXepi6GLk4hAQOM0p8eXKADcJZwyixdO4URpAqYQFX ibVHGtlBbBGBVIlFWyeBxZkFgiWOzfrCAmILCVhIrNixAMxmE9CSWHXnOjOIzS8gKbGhYTeY zStgL7H1+FOwGhYBVYlJ+xeC2aICERKdK+ezQNQISpyc+QTM5hSwlPi1ZyEbxC4LiZnzz0Pt FZe49WQ+E4StLbFs4Wug+RxAN6hIXDwWPIFRaBaSSbOQdM9C0j0LSfcCRpZVjKLFqcVJuelG xnqpRZnJxcX5eXp5qSWbGIFxcHDLb9UdjJffOB5iFOBgVOLhjdaeGiXEmlhWXJl7iFGCg1lJ hHfl4slRQrwpiZVVqUX58UWlOanFhxilOViUxHnnCLdHCQmkJ5akZqemFqQWwWSZODilGhit Fi6xTehdYHpCYttNrW6W+8tjrvdkWwp+4uDo4a8561aW8frCOQn+XYwp/PEJubXqu3U7p86q kn/0IjQpbUdoEb/+sWylptuvVQwXB35+4v/h9mFf3qbfVYsrZ/+8dDbhQY2Wx6TejodyO06I +36ZaM5yXv2oCOu+xvm6skzzdt1+ZSXlt12JpTgj0VCLuag4EQBbtwmsfwIAAA==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/rb3HLbU19dDpbaJ84U7N66ckDYI>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-18
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 11:18:33 -0000
Hi Joel, done! The new version with your suggested changes and diff are here: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-19.txt https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-19 P.S. I took the liberty to fix a small typo from the text: drop HIP-base connectivity -> drop HIP-based connectivity On 02/26/2018 04:39 PM, jmh.direct wrote: > These changes very nicely address my concerns.b You should check with > your chair,and AD before submitting a,revision. > > Thank you, > Joel > > > > Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S® 6, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Miika Komu <miika.komu@ericsson.com> > Date: 2/26/18 06:56 (GMT-05:00) > To: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, gen-art@ietf.org > Cc: draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis.all@ietf.org, hipsec@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-18 > > Hi Joel, > > thanks for the nice review! My suggested changes for HIP architecture > document are below (in "diff" format). > > On 02/18/2018 07:33 AM, Joel Halpern wrote: > > Reviewer: Joel Halpern > > Review result: Ready with Nits > > > > 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 > > > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > > > Document: draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-18 > > Reviewer: Joel Halpern > > Review Date: 2018-02-17 > > IETF LC End Date: 2018-02-26 > > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > > > Summary: This document is ready for publication as an Informational RFCs. > > The following comments may be useful for the authors to consider. > > > > Major issues: N/A > > > > Minor issues: > > In the table in section 2.2 (Terms specific to this and other HIP > > documents) the Host Identity Hash is defined as "The > cryptographic hash > > used in creating the Host Identity Tag from the Host Identity." > I am > > pretty sure the last word should be Identifier, not Identity,, which > > matches the meanings and the usage in the following term. > > agreed. Suggested change: > > Host Identity Hash The cryptographic hash used > - in creating the Host Identity Tag from the Host Identity. > + in creating the Host Identity Tag from the Host Identifier. > (I will move the definition of Host Identifier earlier so that the > terms appear in chronological order) > > > In section 4.1 second paragraph, it seems odd to refer to the > > public-private key pair as the structure of the abstract Host > Identity. > > Given that the earlier text refers to the Public key as the Host > > Identifier, I am not sure how you want to refer to the > public/private key > > pair. But I do not think it "is" the structure of the Host > Identity. > > Agree. Suggested rephrasing: > > - The only completely defined structure of the Host Identity > - is that of a public/private key pair. In this case, the Host > - Identity is referred to by its public component, the public > + An identity is based on public-private key cryptography in HIP. > + The Host Identity is referred to by its public component, the > public > key. > > > In the section 4.4 discussion of locally scoped identifier (LSI), it > > appears that applications need to be modified to use this. > Reading between > > the lines of the stack architecture, the actual advantage of > using HIP with > > LSIs is that the application changes can be restricted to whatever > > indication is to be used that the stack is to use HIP, rather > than changing > > the places that use sockaddrs, etc. But this is not clearly > stated here. > > yes, you are correct. I would suggest the following changes to make this > more clear: > > A Host Identity Tag is a 128-bit representation for a Host > - Identity. It is created from an HIH, > - an IPv6 prefix [RFC7343] and a hash identifier. > + Identity. Due to its size, it is suitable to be used in the > existing sockets API in > + the place of IPv6 addresses (e.g. in sockaddr_in6 structure, > sin6_addr member) without modifying applications. > + It is created from an HIH, an IPv6 prefix [RFC7343] > + and a hash identifier. > > ...and the following: > > An LSI is a 32-bit localized representation for a Host > - Identity. The purpose of an LSI is to facilitate using Host > + Identity. Due to its size, it is suitable to be used in the > existing sockets API in > + the place of IPv4 addresses (e.g. in sockaddr_in structure, > sin_addr member) without modifying applications. > + The purpose of an LSI is to facilitate using Host > Identities in existing APIs for IPv4-based > - applications. Besides facilitating HIP-based connectivity for > + applications. > + LSIs are never transmitted on the wire; when an application > + sends data using a pair of LSIs, the HIP layer (or sockets > + handler) translates the LSIs to the corresponding HITs, and > + vice versa for receiving of data. > + Besides facilitating HIP-based connectivity for > legacy IPv4 applications, the LSIs are beneficial in two other > scenarios [RFC6538]. > > @@ -712,6 +721,14 @@ > to facilitate backward compatibility with existing networking > APIs and stacks.</t> > > > In section 5.1 paragraph 3, the text talks about a connecting > client not > > specifying a responder identifier (HIP Opportunistic mode) in > order to > > enable load balancing. I think the text would be helped by an > example of > > how an initiator might know to do this, rather than just not > using HIP. > > Also, it would be good if the text was explicit as to whether or > not there > > was a way to support load balancing / multi servers without > either using a > > shared identity or sacrificing security by using Opportunistic HIP. > > agreed, the description of this was quite short. Would the following > clarify your concerns? > > + At the server side, utilizing DNS is a better alternative than a > + shared Host Identity to implement load balancing. A single FQDN > entry can be configured > + to refer to multiple Host Identities. Each of the FQDN entries > + can be associated with the related locators, or a single > + shared locator in the case the servers are using the same HIP > rendezvous server > + or HIP relay server. > + > Instead of duplicating identities, HIP opportunistic mode > can be employed, where the initiator leaves out the identifier > of the responder when initiating the key exchange and learns > @@ -731,14 +766,21 @@ > it upon the completion of the exchange. The tradeoffs are > related to lowered security guarantees, but a benefit of the > approach is to avoid publishing of Host Identifiers in any > - directories [komu-leap]. The approach could also be used > - for load balancing purposes at the HIP layer because the > - identity of the responder can be decided dynamically during > - the key exchange. Thus, the approach has > - the potential to be used as a HIP-layer "anycast", either > - directly between two hosts or indirectly through the > - rendezvous service [komu-diss]. > + directories [komu-leap]. Since many public > + servers already employ DNS as their directory, opportunistic mode > + may be more suitable for, e.g, peer-to-peer connectivity. > > + HIP opportunistic mode could be utilized in association > + with HIP rendezvous servers or HIP relay servers > + [komu-diss]. In such a scenario, the Initiator sends > + an I1 message with a wildcard destination HIT to the locator of a HIP > + rendezvous/relay server. When the receiving rendezvous/relay server is > + serving multiple registered Responders, the server can choose > + the ultimate destination HIT, thus acting as a HIP based load > + balancer. However, this approach is still experimental and > + requires further investigation. > + > > (I can also remove the last paragraph if it is still unclear) > > > Given that section 5 is titled "New Stack Architecture", I think > it would > > be helpful if the section were explicit as to where the HIP > logic lives > > relative to the IP and UDP/TCP portions of the host stack. This > would help > > the reader have the right model for interpreting section 6.2 and > 8.1. > > I would suggest to add a new paragraph in the end of the section to > clarify this: > > + HIP layer is logically located at layer 3.5, between the > + transport and network layers, in the networking stack. It acts > + as shim layer for transport data utilizing LSIs or HITs, but > + leaves other data intact. HIP layer translates between the two > + forms of HIP identifiers originating from the transport layer > + into routable IPv4/IPv6 addresses for the network layer, and > + vice versa for the reverse direction. > > > Nits/editorial comments: > > Section 4.2 third sentence "It is possible to for ..." should be > "It is > > possible for ..." > > Good catch, will fix this too. > > Joel, should I go ahead and submit a new version (bis-19) of the document?
- [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-h… Joel Halpern
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ie… Miika Komu
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ie… jmh.direct
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ie… Miika Komu
- Re: [Gen-art] [Hipsec] Genart last call review of… Robert Moskowitz