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

Miika Komu <miika.komu@ericsson.com> Fri, 05 August 2016 12:19 UTC

Return-Path: <miika.komu@ericsson.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 3110412D61B; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 05:19:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Je_LXIu8cJ8U; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 05:19:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sessmg22.ericsson.net (sessmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.58]) (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 7DF1912D0BA; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 05:19:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3a-c91fe700000009bd-9a-57a48438802b
Received: from ESESSHC022.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.84]) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id C1.CC.02493.83484A75; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 14:19:06 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [100.94.2.45] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.86) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.301.0; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 14:19:04 +0200
To: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@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> <CAE_dhjui38cLkfNTE1-05BGp0JDr9Z9MMizJgABSAmLs9cuAoQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Miika Komu <miika.komu@ericsson.com>
Organization: Ericsson AB
Message-ID: <a8d6aa96-4479-41b9-ce86-361425515a13@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2016 15:19:03 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAE_dhjui38cLkfNTE1-05BGp0JDr9Z9MMizJgABSAmLs9cuAoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms010906000909080601080706"
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprGIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2J7iK5Vy5Jwg/MTVS2erv/FbHGktYvd YuqiycwWM/5MZLb4cnQas8X0vdfYHdg81nZfZfPYOesuu8eSJT+ZApijuGxSUnMyy1KL9O0S uDIeTFnKUrDZt2LRd5sGxg63LkYODgkBE4nlp8O7GLk4hATWM0qsXrWVEcJZwSix90cvexcj J4ewQJ7Ex2/f2EBsEYEoiT0X1rBCFDUxSSy4spYJJMEsUCzRduk9I4jNJqAlserOdWYQm19A UmJDw24wm1fAXqLp4RUWEJtFQEXi5qYWMFtUIELi1qqPjBA1ghInZz4Bi3MKBEpM+XqMHWQZ s0A3o8Tjj29YQc4WAmq+eCx4AqPALCQts5CVzQK7yVbiztzdzBC2tsSyha+hbGuJGb8OskHY ihJTuh+yQ9imEq+PfmSEsI0llq37y7aAkWMVo2hxanFxbrqRkV5qUWZycXF+nl5easkmRmAM Hdzy22oH48HnjocYBTgYlXh4FzQtDhdiTSwrrsw9xKgCNOfRhtUXGKVY8vLzUpVEeIWbl4QL 8aYkVlalFuXHF5XmpBYfYpTmYFES5/V/qRguJJCeWJKanZpakFoEk2Xi4JRqYMy7lPdozsq5 emXLPtx3yZ8w78P52m1hfzO/PUlSMbZXZX6pt6qSk/F98dOA9zZmnuyOT6InfW/avrV9n3tZ /8NdAUI3jgjeD7mgttdqQWc817L7/NNdPKJT5q/awHZb+cGfILUD19oPKu/zZfr0dj9zkFSn bd35vM2+nYYvH1YlymbVOlw2V1NiKc5INNRiLipOBACJfIE4qQIAAA==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/F1tSqDY4fTkyzxwMtLwEDlkxqq0>
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 12:19:11 -0000

Hi,

the proposed changes seemed fine at least to me.

P.S. Sorry, got back from holidays this week.

On 08/05/2016 03:42 AM, Julien Laganier wrote:
> 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.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec mailing list
> Hipsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
>