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

Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 21 July 2016 14:39 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 3B94012D666; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:39:40 -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 5RCZMiuGjPwM; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:39:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22c.google.com (mail-oi0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22c]) (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 247BC12D67D; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:39:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id l65so120255895oib.1; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:39:31 -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=01xb8avQf0RP+IW8cX8F8NuD+LQa1chVKNukW3I5pPk=; b=N9aMrVrXb80roTr+4TAeL/ae9zltD07gUtW/TcH+XId4ZoqRHklkrS4CCq/EQyyaOh FGfhcxqDq/z0FD4vVmu3Mb5IN/zeoexyGe2+3rmNi6DqHKd0I2Os8s2uRTXD7Q5iZyIA A1mve0+BFthK3hJtu5xX4IOYJR3cGHV1ufKx/YCpru2HMGFGKWVTd7dFVWpgkWdwnBg2 vzQY+7UP7kVaKFTRpH/ywUro+P7pHuXxLFGcgXunpZqv3aGTHo9GgSYlYhpZAL66bRAh oFBJuVoX3osSdxM2zw686JOHWO2rXZqEPJJeoG+QOfnwsDCQK82FkoEybMGozw9YbF+w vlNw==
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=01xb8avQf0RP+IW8cX8F8NuD+LQa1chVKNukW3I5pPk=; b=S3HnOVH1/PygYM6rqp7wh/Rp6aT+Day30KlGHOo4BUMZ4qw8WnqFScPqQAlFJnnP/p RwvbzWKSGxIJ2dFyFyR+Q8S8vwRbryJvMoY1Qhw+ggM6KzWV8JXpzzs7nWL6cp0CpPUo yIWRn4HHWy0TZ/hWN5XffGXs+sIp7rivML+WGde4AvxfOUUPLDRHeYqGw/ZxTR1cqRSn JKZdWJq2bkgYtVhZXCkHFbkL7JBSiJI8f3LTFAI4gmSX3Yifw/BbwjwnCJi4AvRLap0V NU8BVTeDYT9UNR8piYlF7wSFYHWill6LrQM27WcJN1TTOMj2OrjsgaHA98R3A9Hw9fEb Qusg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tImXdNF4Pse5EMpKOZZHagYOlxG7FQQ5awJSx6I+FOKXWRGVYXNo9WOC2GNET389ANhRR2bZXlFBNeMDA==
X-Received: by 10.157.39.114 with SMTP id r105mr31981030ota.136.1469111970452; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:39:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.47.164 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:39:30 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAE_dhjsBGhnRT1ypTkLnGLrP8y3vFCMbj7Zb6iDTBQgbdOJY6g@mail.gmail.com>
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_dhjsBGhnRT1ypTkLnGLrP8y3vFCMbj7Zb6iDTBQgbdOJY6g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:39:30 -0700
Message-ID: <CAE_dhjucd_p9jokVqdSOWB8bMXKp1ut4hGv47z4TvwH-1ha5dw@mail.gmail.com>
To: HIP <hipsec@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/qF611bXe1m9H15DdFnnrkCoBwpA>
Cc: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis@ietf.org, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, hip-chairs@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: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 14:39:40 -0000

(trimming the whole IESG from the thread for now)

HIP WG folks:

Unless someone objects or has a better proposal, I intend to implement
the following proposal to resolve Stephen's DISCUSS.

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.

Thanks,

--julien


On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 7:35 AM, Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>; wrote:
> Thanks, Stephen.
>
> The HIP WG was CC'd on these emails so participants have seen the
> proposal, I will seek their feedback in a separate note.
>
> 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.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>