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

Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 20 July 2016 15:11 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 E31D712D8F7; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 08:11:08 -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 46BQVawtgqjO; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 08:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22d.google.com (mail-oi0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22d]) (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 66C5312D8C1; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 08:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id l72so75677403oig.2; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 08:11:05 -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=/PXIWcNh0HAEnmvSI49cBXuE1BoGPlPmd/Of61j+PLY=; b=JOWs1/ZuIre/K6FnR7f9qD8F6ZJTZfY4+w2ZVUAKS9jAO6VVXNOnvNSJ79Ga9KFmtl CP/pHmbQmbbS9HkQQ82R6jC+S+xgmCnhhFTeY5RCtjMDcp0ZALkxq/YdVPrus9ibvuRM isrmlGBOH8Q+U5DwS11yZeKVNwydo1UALAJv92SJMfbf/xyO0UxHyzuNMp+7vCQqBvAh j2cTUgRhxkxAlrgYtYs6LQAdZJLIvB5CxpDsWqGOKm+KjEKJ1MGhfRItgeB6ebNIN0m/ nulqg1XGI3gmazK7QE1PElvdfKpa1fnTfM+6td+F7dJZ5A7BoUT7N6JYlHZ+kovtl3v8 bEbQ==
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=/PXIWcNh0HAEnmvSI49cBXuE1BoGPlPmd/Of61j+PLY=; b=KSoQPhy5Gw9yCr5R9X9qCrTrGd6YG9fXumFNYoOpt8DGVK3HR4lJ7e/cB5deLJDAou cihNeIc4Te/eQZngg4e4J37OknTyK1gNuXd62Ll2a1Yyt39q4yOcZiiAylo9pk9Cj28r IaQx/2TDWN9L/Jd1C5Oou8udTXCQ+rURdao+IQXMGohSZQwTk6emtyfSY2d5OQoH1N1G y67WgmIOovpHlJEaYjZvikSSv8W0sfBTDAxtrTeXhQZRYLlt3XGfW55wlBdx1o1lPuAV OH2eEHhrsk1HsrncTEjx2Ck1aN/UqlxqTBg24HkA6dBaRkPLt/USOI5/w8WvlZtV/fDm QiJg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tL8NgRAV72dmqEUIgCHdDBjBkviOoCmJw8dVkgCTlV3Kuf1KZbBN6jvHXFgWI3XnKDUfyxDNcYkIS9E2A==
X-Received: by 10.157.6.134 with SMTP id 6mr26506752otx.186.1469027464683; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 08:11:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.47.164 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 08:11:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20160705140143.22339.24069.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20160705140143.22339.24069.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 08:11:04 -0700
Message-ID: <CAE_dhjtc7VHZaMEu_rHZwbGKPvh1cxpsbV-BvFBYF_vp4zvehQ@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/5zI5VyrDJkYpWC2K2_H5K4f1Qxk>
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: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 15:11:09 -0000

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.)
>
>