Re: [Hipsec] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-28: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Thu, 27 December 2018 01:05 UTC
Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 D98B3127B4C for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Dec 2018 17:05:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 k0c_drenk_em for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Dec 2018 17:05:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x129.google.com (mail-lf1-x129.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::129]) (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 B5E571286D9 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Dec 2018 17:05:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x129.google.com with SMTP id p86so11741323lfg.5 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Dec 2018 17:05:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=5ZwSdV86vnaVFIRkYg5moSE7XstbdF7RG+bd2YaJJbw=; b=QwcC7DsXOQpT2SCAVu2mmuP5EzlLcltgFdj5GKDx6/nLTp66f3B+E3m2GSZOfJNOty 1nkL/H7U8jd+tm89I//sfohft1hgvYgXhOnPuUY+QF52cK9FjssrjB71NDMRfwME56n6 DfFwf+D3TwJvYUD+WPGWY3EL6igo2OMk81VPlJYYjK0IbSl1osPciNqdnssqITKpCGsM 61b8wcux923DQ/1iQTTpLZkHjiiuvK7kMUGCbVHd3PGVNvyZtFX5zJQXNeb0ci073e8c 0WxEs8+5qGe4XlLrwn/BUz4uVQkHUUq5yAJzJZp1vdGCPJ424e46NvUosM0Cu3xf3YaJ aeVg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=5ZwSdV86vnaVFIRkYg5moSE7XstbdF7RG+bd2YaJJbw=; b=azku6aVSvnoQd1BX8wR98kg5W9oKwwq/4hgwI7NJ94ld8IFYWNs2hYgsMfiF5UpM49 mQexxLIt5hWEX0x7p5Aiupkkx/is/wrvGCbtvUrBaFCDEldF7f5GXI+QuipLsGfu3A18 TRv5tT8kmS0WY/eZC4/gNS4nyLnK7ej3bXnec6SHJETOSrObntVB8qe7DGjSFBAASloM zgm59ZmPTU6dmJtoRbHl8mJCsfv1jyQtssvEABunjL4tqW4ydack/RwZwsC3mlEofSJ+ GF1Rc6han9AbgNUYNS/aR24Mb+i1uKC6FcnO8wfzpSb9QH4Lke1tRYtzEn/jZgecvLRF HrHA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWamOypdRl7K/Qh45QVgmSQheOZ665/HslGw3f8MnHdHYWnOZbUQ ATYHojhD7bgZzit2HSxpFvhO0BMX2oAIr5WlZfeYbQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/Ue9Cza3/ku1MjGiEB1ETqIKVXnle95XdwSrU9B0m+kpmZ5umy4Gs9asGBUqtAQJBouFVsouQfahWEhVGCwmKM=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:a9d2:: with SMTP id s201mr10334953lfe.154.1545872707821; Wed, 26 Dec 2018 17:05:07 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <152546246777.11589.13288594519409569524.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <a657ffe0-3574-850e-3b8d-9b21f6f8825b@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <a657ffe0-3574-850e-3b8d-9b21f6f8825b@ericsson.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2018 17:04:27 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBO3gLUZevW0zTN6RHiuYBY+7d-4DefSNBA3FzhXFWfGQw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Miika Komu <miika.komu@ericsson.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "hipsec@ietf.org" <hipsec@ietf.org>, Gonzalo Camarillo <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>, "hip-chairs@ietf.org" <hip-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009e3b97057df6893f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/G1t1eBG08Ys7lpF_05g4fWQruok>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-28: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 01:05:16 -0000
On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 1:37 PM Miika Komu <miika.komu@ericsson.com> wrote: > Hi Eric, > > apologies for the belated response, I am not working on HIP anymore, so > it has been rather difficult to find time for this. > > On 5/4/18 22:34, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for > > draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-28: 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-native-nat-traversal/ > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > DISCUSS: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Rich version of this review at: > > https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D3099 > > > > > > I am very familiar with ICE and yet I found this document extremely > > hard to follow. The problem is that it cherry-picks pieces of ICE and > > I'm just not sure that it's a complete specification when put all > > together. I have noted a number of places where I actually am not sure > > how to implement something, and fixing those will resolve this > > DISCUSS, but IMO you really should totally rewrite this document > > either (a) as a variant of ICE or (b) as an entirely new document not > > with a pile of new text and then references out to ICE sections. > > the expected receivers of the work are the implementers of RFC5770, so > the draft follows the sectioning of the RFC5770 (which has two > interoperable implementations). > > If I understood your comment right, the variant of ICE (a) would follow > the ICE document structure but then the document would not serve anymore > HIP implementers so well. What comes to option (b), I think it would > make the the document quite long if we replicated everything in the ICE > specification (and possibly from the HIP specifications) in the draft. > Yes, it would be long, because ICE is complicated. It would also be complete. As I said in my initial ballot, if you resolve the ambiguities I noted I will clear my DISCUSS, but I think that this document should really be rewritten and i would urge the AD to require it. > > S 4.6.2. > >> > >> A host may receive a connectivity check before it has received the > >> candidates from its peer. In such a case, the host MUST > immediately > >> generate a response, and then continue waiting for the > candidates. A > >> host MUST NOT select a candidate pair until it has verified the > pair > >> using a connectivity check as defined in Section 4.6.1. > > > > Are you supposed to put this on a TODO check list as with ICE? > > I believe you refer to the triggered-check queue: > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8445#section-6.1.4.1 > > I changed the text as follows: > > A host may receive a connectivity check before it has > > received the candidates from its peer. In such a case, the > > host MUST immediately generate a response by placing it in the > triggered-check queue, and then continue > waiting for the candidates. > Well, this isn't generating a response, it's queueing a response. > S 5.8. > >> > >> 5.8. RELAY_HMAC Parameter > >> > >> As specified in Legacy ICE-HIP [RFC5770], the RELAY_HMAC parameter > >> value has the TLV type 65520. It has the same semantics as > RVS_HMAC > >> [RFC8004]. > > > > What key is used for the HMAC? > > clarified this as follows: > > [..] It has the same semantics as RVS_HMAC as specified in section 4.2.1 > in [RFC8004]. Similarly as with RVS_HMAC, also RELAY_HMAC is is keyed > with the HIP integrity key (HIP-lg or HIP-gl as specified in section 6.5 > in [RFC7401]), established during the relay registration procedure as > described in Section 4.1. > This seems like it might have potential for cross-protocol attacks on the key. Why is this OK> > > S 4.2. > >> deployments in order to enable it by software configuration > update if > >> needed at some point. A host SHOULD employ only a single server > for > >> gathering the candidates for a single HIP association; either one > >> server providing both Control and Data Relay Server > functionality, or > >> one Control Relay Server and also Data Relay Server if the > >> functionality is offered by another server. When the relay > service > > > > How does this interact with mult-layered NAT?> > > No different from ICE with separated STUN and TURN servers multi-layer > NAT scenarios. Should we mention something about the issues related to > some specific scenario? > Well, with multi-layered NAT, you actually want a STUN server at each level so that you minimize hairpinning. But you recommend against that here. > S 5.7. > >> | Reserved | 0 | Reserved for future extensions > | > >> | Preferred | 0 or 1 | Set to 1 for a Locator in R1 if the > | > >> | (P) bit | | Responder can use it for the rest of > the | > >> | | | base exchange, otherwise set to zero > | > >> | Locator | Variable | Locator lifetime in seconds > | > >> | Lifetime | | > | > > > > What is the purpose of this? It's not an ICE parameter. > > In HIP, locators have a maximum lifetime after which they become > deprecated (RFC8046). Should add something here? > Yes -Ekr
- [Hipsec] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-hi… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Hipsec] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [Hipsec] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Hipsec] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [Hipsec] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Hipsec] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [Hipsec] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Miika Komu
- Re: [Hipsec] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Miika Komu
- Re: [Hipsec] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Hipsec] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Miika Komu
- Re: [Hipsec] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Hipsec] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Miika Komu
- Re: [Hipsec] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [Hipsec] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Hipsec] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Miika Komu
- Re: [Hipsec] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Hipsec] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Miika Komu
- Re: [Hipsec] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Hipsec] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Miika Komu
- Re: [Hipsec] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-iet… Eric Rescorla