Re: [Hipsec] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 05 August 2016 00:42 UTC

Return-Path: <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C5BF12D636; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 17:42:29 -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, FREEMAIL_FROM=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=gmail.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 pIwny5lox9fL; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 17:42:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22a.google.com (mail-oi0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27F3F12DB52; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 17:42:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id j185so343824824oih.0; Thu, 04 Aug 2016 17:42:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=DJX3MaS2ul4QUuA2M3ayTfvl1+ugn/jZYivq1SfuXeA=; b=OmPp/H6bDa3Sa26YpC5Q2+iG80wIVMzCCHEjzBiIkjmZXhpVM/accmpivAD8rOy3Bd SRqeq0/Zc1Q81WumWpa5X/EgLOxoMtT5ZFQri/tcNvK5kdrVf9dy6Ok7dCCoA0SB6At1 pv/BgycshWpPpwSF9G9XTV9tOS5UiCtCYFLl5EsiBm7aH6P8tEGk4dmN77rlpfe/YcKC 0QANYW8dxy4STr+DtbxmK/SkvePeNp9PlFVPTVpREdiPECYq3auKytXTb1osOm9Hmfyt 8MI7ifg7/ws+TcpiohidGLahsEH41QRpfjBj2A/GnCoR/DXOABEdyRNRNyipy6LODRrG J7rQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=DJX3MaS2ul4QUuA2M3ayTfvl1+ugn/jZYivq1SfuXeA=; b=ammo1rvK76kWAeSLpHPNEfntlzMbYvc00i7z/qT2vZ031PFtbeMVgdqPML1R34SYC7 xQuqrC6EP9uH01MdndEOsNp4RaquIa1xMNzgFuY0zeDw2jVdtmTMf9AsW9HyBwZ7TAfA r5TA0SWxVMYV17kiqo7N4AP3W3nECjxuhj/durqOl2IgwVzZKnewnlX2WzQrhjtSdTOj i0n/MN/+5ZsUC+btrnONRB5zVAI4m0eN2/2ja1mDcMYXWGgGKfa1pq7nXMatc8aO4h7o RkFuPhQZFPFmmo5H3d52t1X9fsWUAmWj21/azK7kOM80C6w2o2PGF6Z/bnZq2ASWWn8u lIGw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoousNsdFIOb+MpYDbIicS7ONOot7aJuNB/sujFLhZydY7YQENHWvTfOHRNmT8vO7dN7N+7z2faLCRO55sPQ==
X-Received: by 10.157.32.33 with SMTP id n30mr16473841ota.120.1470357746469; Thu, 04 Aug 2016 17:42:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.63.52 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 17:42:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <102eb607-f1c5-9dc8-e7bb-fa5fd1daf838@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <20160705140143.22339.24069.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAE_dhjtc7VHZaMEu_rHZwbGKPvh1cxpsbV-BvFBYF_vp4zvehQ@mail.gmail.com> <102eb607-f1c5-9dc8-e7bb-fa5fd1daf838@cs.tcd.ie>
From: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 17:42:25 -0700
Message-ID: <CAE_dhjui38cLkfNTE1-05BGp0JDr9Z9MMizJgABSAmLs9cuAoQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/2wheQl918Jf5yRlPWd3tWx7sAQM>
Cc: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis@ietf.org, HIP <hipsec@ietf.org>, hip-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." <hipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/hipsec/>
List-Post: <mailto:hipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2016 00:42:29 -0000

Hi Stephen,

FYI I've implemented the proposed change in the last draft revision.

Best,

--julien

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 4:22 AM, Stephen Farrell
<stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>; wrote:
>
> Hiya,
>
> That'd be fine for clearing my discuss.
>
> I'd encourage you to also get feedback from the WG though as I
> don't think I've ever seen a list of cert handling errors that
> was correct first time around:-)
>
> Cheers,
> S.
>
>
>
> On 20/07/16 16:11, Julien Laganier wrote:
>> Hi Stephen,
>>
>> Thanks for reviewing the document.
>>
>> I think there would be value in making the cause of certificate error
>> explicit. Would the following change be acceptable?
>>
>> OLD:
>>
>>    If the certificate in the parameter is not accepted, the registrar
>>    MUST reject the corresponding registrations with Failure Type [IANA
>>    TBD] (Invalid certificate).
>>
>> NEW:
>>
>>    If the certificate in the parameter is not accepted, the registrar
>>    MUST reject the corresponding registrations with the appropriate
>>    Failure Type:
>>    [IANA TBD] (Bad certificate): The certificate is corrupt, contains
>> invalid signatures, etc.
>>    [IANA TBD] (Unsupported certificate): The certificate is of an
>> unsupported type.
>>    [IANA TBD] (Certificate expired): The certificate is no longer valid.
>>    [IANA TBD] (Certificate other): The certificate could not be
>> validated for some unspecified reason.
>>    [IANA TBD] (Unknown CA): The issuing CA certificate could not be
>> located or is not trusted.
>>
>> Please let us know.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> --julien
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 7:01 AM, Stephen Farrell
>> <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>; wrote:
>>> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
>>> draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-10: 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-hip-rfc5203-bis/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> DISCUSS:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> 3.3 - This fails to distinguish between an invalid
>>> certificate (e.g. bad signature, unknown signer) and one
>>> that is valid, but is not acceptable for this purpose.  I
>>> don't get why that is ok for HIP, can you explain?  If it
>>> is ok, I think you need to say so. If it is not ok (as I'd
>>> suspect) then you appear to need to change text or one more
>>> new error code.
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> COMMENT:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> Section 7 - I'm fine that this doesn't repeat stuff
>>> from 5203, but a sentence saying to go look there too
>>> would maybe be good. (I'm not sure if that would fix
>>> Alexey's discuss or not. If not, then ignore me and
>>> just talk to him about his discuss.)
>>>
>>>
>