Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-hip-dex-06.txt
Miika Komu <miika.komu@ericsson.com> Tue, 09 April 2019 20:53 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 BE206120459; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 13:53:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 wCn4LPwSOxeM; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 13:53:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EUR01-VE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr140088.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.14.88]) (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 762E9120456; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 13:53:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ericsson.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=2za4Zzh1Ds2E0JVOn+IBNIgdBYBvqmHCwlQDH0GMuDg=; b=QrHE9Wb925KYGHFVUAXDSO/gLTzhiufxITkA9IxJg00UyoGVky1aXgbUmQL7WyB1nKCArpFutyQu4/OyN8MQUHZnoqrYoJuZ5BS1V98lXeQ4cprQ/R4UHv4cF0ZYqhVtDMBKfxf3Lo65L7qbD40FEIx5bv3lamM+BR9CMvXfBas=
Received: from HE1PR0702MB3786.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (52.133.7.16) by HE1PR0702MB3627.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (52.133.6.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1792.8; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 20:53:14 +0000
Received: from HE1PR0702MB3786.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::5c63:43a2:1c45:bbab]) by HE1PR0702MB3786.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::5c63:43a2:1c45:bbab%4]) with mapi id 15.20.1792.007; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 20:53:14 +0000
From: Miika Komu <miika.komu@ericsson.com>
To: "draft-ietf-hip-dex.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-hip-dex.all@ietf.org>
CC: Gonzalo Camarillo <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "evyncke@cisco.com" <evyncke@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-hip-dex-06.txt
Thread-Index: AQHU7kbjaDoGd+MyDUCMmR97XvWJoaY0T/CA
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2019 20:53:14 +0000
Message-ID: <a15486708c633c2acb3045a7004ee4f32fa253df.camel@ericsson.com>
References: <c0cdc1d75590599c0a77dd72d768460399c34666.camel@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <c0cdc1d75590599c0a77dd72d768460399c34666.camel@ericsson.com>
Accept-Language: fi-FI, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-mailer: Evolution 3.28.5-0ubuntu0.18.04.1
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=miika.komu@ericsson.com;
x-originating-ip: [192.176.1.83]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 39857aae-4be8-4fa2-2e35-08d6bd2d62c4
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600139)(711020)(4605104)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:HE1PR0702MB3627;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: HE1PR0702MB3627:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <HE1PR0702MB3627FC5F0438A69601B9CB43FC2D0@HE1PR0702MB3627.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
x-forefront-prvs: 000227DA0C
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(396003)(39860400002)(376002)(366004)(346002)(136003)(51444003)(189003)(199004)(476003)(81156014)(446003)(68736007)(2501003)(478600001)(118296001)(6916009)(2616005)(76176011)(11346002)(486006)(86362001)(6512007)(6306002)(53936002)(54906003)(5640700003)(305945005)(25786009)(316002)(53546011)(14444005)(256004)(229853002)(44832011)(106356001)(2351001)(66066001)(8676002)(2906002)(71200400001)(71190400001)(5660300002)(50226002)(97736004)(8936002)(7736002)(102836004)(14454004)(6246003)(6116002)(26005)(81166006)(6436002)(4326008)(186003)(6486002)(99286004)(105586002)(6506007)(36756003)(3846002)(99106002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:HE1PR0702MB3627; H:HE1PR0702MB3786.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: ericsson.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: Xr00tOALT2vDdANMtXgrCKFN/fqVLZoB3kdf1rPd6qXA+ET8C2PJzjICiYIu0kO6l917HINCSUlfbU3dFUoBDkIMzDcB90AdNWkhJX3bPXGKwTPXnllidPOUGKNqQITdmrLw0JpWQXYDsBTdQ01NNFteBsiDxAmfTvbYUSuHSZIcPWev005hUIP8TREG9X3vvto7zlDGyha1DgTCxZChP5sT3/aBT5f7P4GlCAZoOzUX3+lx/zzExKDY55YL7knu9Tw448HS6evXAhDLYESK6HhNHEmbqZFXCtTZHgzBIyyU+7S9BLjOzBaccR+zRroCQ+f0xgAekegvRzm/0iGgHrfGrzmAyrGXkn1C2Wp+jwMUqf5kJGMOGjZ2RhRFrVh5dL8RWIDjcgnyxdw1spFqnMapmSqP69fJNTrlF7amirM=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <183085792C4E1A4C9BA342F90180D4E6@eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: ericsson.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 39857aae-4be8-4fa2-2e35-08d6bd2d62c4
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 09 Apr 2019 20:53:14.6354 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 92e84ceb-fbfd-47ab-be52-080c6b87953f
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: HE1PR0702MB3627
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/vmk8OPIs5SQW5UHtk2PnpbSo1Xc>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-hip-dex-06.txt
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: Tue, 09 Apr 2019 20:53:21 -0000
Hi Francis, thanks for detailed comments! My comments below. > Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> Tue, 10 April 2018 > 11:39 UTCShow header > > Bob, Rene, could you please get back to Francis (see below)? > > Gonzalo > > On 05/03/2018 1:14 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > > Bob, Rene, > > > > could you please look into the review below and get back to > > Francis? > > Thanks! > > > > Cheers, > > > > Gonzalo > > > > On 26/02/2018 7:30 PM, Francis Dupont wrote: > > > 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-dex-06.txt > > > Reviewer: Francis Dupont > > > Review Date: 20180224 > > > IETF LC End Date: 20180226 > > > IESG Telechat date: unknown > > > > > > Summary: Ready > > > > > > Major issues: None > > > > > > Minor issues: None > > > > > > Nits/editorial comments: > > > - ToC page 3: you use the US spelling of Acknowledgments in the > > > ToC > > > and the English one (acknowledgements) in the technical body. > > > Even when it is not very consistent I believe this follows RFC > > 7401 > > > choice so I am fine with this. changed to U.S. spelling. > > > - 2.1 page 6: please add/move to RFC 8174 which updates RFC 2119 > > fixing > > > the keyword case silly issue. done > > > - 2.2 page 6: perhaps "sort" should be added here? I replicated the "sort" defition that appears later in the text to here as well > > > - 2.3 page 7 (twice): (c.f. Section 3) -> (see Section 3) or > > > simply (Section 3) thanks, fixed using the first expression > > > - 4.1.3.2 page 16 (at end of line): e.g. -> e.g., fixed > > > - 5.3.3 page 25: I don't believe the critical property for > > > random value is to be "uniformly distributed" (for instance > > > I could have put "unpredictable"). I leave this to the security > > > directorate who should propose a better wording if they don't > > > like > > > the current one... I think this refers to that the probability of each output value from the random value generator is the same, i.e., no value is "favored" more than others, which should be a fair assumption for a randomly generated values > > > - 5.3.4 page 26: same comment. (see above) > > > - 6.1 page 27: this section does not really explain what is the > > puzzle > > > (it only stands the equation to verify) but I remember the > > explaination > > > was before with a reference to 6.1 so I have no concern. (it was mentioned in section 1.1) > > > - 6.2.1 sender 3 page 27: hidden dependency on the sort > > > definition > > > for HOST_g/HOST_l so gl/lg keys. Yes it is in 6.3 but 6.3 is > > after. Added extra sentence to the third sender step: 3. Compute the CMAC using either HIP-gl or HIP-lg integrity key retrieved from KEYMAT as defined in Section 6.3. HIP-gl refers to host with greater HIT value and HIP-lg refers to the host with smaller HIT value. > > > - 6.3 pages and 30: sort is used page 29 and defined after page > > > 30, > > > this is why IMHO the question to move the definition to 2.2 > > notation > > > is a good one... I replicated to section 2.2. > > > - 6.3 page 30: / is not associative so ceil(L/RHASH_len/8) is > > > bad. > > > The text shows it must be ceil(L/(RHASH_len/8)) (vs > > ceil((L/RHASH_len)/8)) good catch, now it is: N = ceil(L/(RHASH_len/8)) > > > - 6.5 1. page 31: Otherwise, it must drop the packet. -> MUST fixed as suggested > > > - 6.6 1. page 33: the system should process the R1 packet -> or > > SHOULD > > > or (I prefer) the system processes the R1 packet used the latter expression > > > - 6.6 8. page 34: The R1 packet may have the A-bit set -> can > > > (not better from a language point of view but clearer and BTW > > > used for instance in 6.10...) fixed > > > - 6.6 13. page 34: it may either resend an I1 packet -> MAY? (cf > > 11.) fixed as suggested > > > - 6.7 5. page 36: Otherwise, the system should process the > > > received > > I2 -> > > > or SHOULD or (better) processes (and drop -> drops) used the latter expression > > > - 6.7 15. page 37: > > > If the A-bit is set, the Initiator's HIT is anonymous and > > should > > > not be stored permanently. -> IMHO SHOULD NOT or directly > > > MUST > > NOT used the latter wording > > > - 6.9 page 39: If a NOTIFY packet is received in state I2-SENT, > > this > > > packet may be an I2 reception acknowledgement of the optional > > > -> replace "may be" by "can be" or (better) "is" used the latter > > > - 7 page 40: Please put "If a Responder is not under high load, > > > #K > > > SHOULD be 0." in its own paragraph (i.e. add a break before > > "If"). > > > It makes clearer this sentence is a requirement when the text > > before > > > is the rationale. done > > > - 8 page 40: " either supports HIP DEX or HIPv2 must be able to > > detect" > > > -> MUST or "has to" used the latter > > > - 8 pages 40 and 41: I think that the first and last paragraphs > > > of > > > section 8 say the same thing. Should you keep both? deleted the last paragraph > > > - 9 page 41: I'd like to see a formal proof of the DEX protocol. > > > I believe you share this wish as you cite SIGMA. hmm, I don't see the problem here. The text refers HIP BEX as SIGMA, and tells why HIP DEX is *not* SIGMA compliant: "HIP DEX, however, replaces the SIGMA-based authenticated Diffie-Hellman key exchange of HIPv2 with an exchange of random keying material that is encrypted with a Diffie-Hellman derived key." > > > - 9 page 42: I'd like to go further and recommend (lower case) > > > the > > > use of a RNG (vs PRNG) when available (hopefully no longer an > > exception). I did not find "RNG" from the document > > > - 9 page 42: Hence, HIP DEX HITs should not be use -> SHOULD or > > > ought to? I took the liberty to change this to MUST NOT be used
- [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-hip-dex-06.txt Francis Dupont
- Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-hip-dex-06.txt Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-hip-dex-06.txt Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-hip-dex-06.txt Miika Komu