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

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Thu, 21 July 2016 11:25 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 6564412DC4D; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 04:25:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.588
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.588 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
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 sDnpoTLa0DJb; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 04:25:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 501F812DDDA; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 04:22:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52F39BE38; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 12:22:51 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LU4p2feHtSEN; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 12:22:49 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [31.133.141.42] (dhcp-8d2a.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.141.42]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EC50EBE32; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 12:22:48 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1469100169; bh=xmHjqeAQu2hXBdlym5A/UVw+S8VDbIMR9FmBPgVSWVQ=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=VpFU8bBbNIjTcNthHys/UUN6gui0jSKfSjO7ThockX0ptgSuqKjIe14ZpBjmElXjl +SFA9FXYlURw7jRITjhIO2l2cdkeOkfCo5t17hToTGrdR4oU/wTFREOO+yJqKEnu26 jf/6IintMddrRqTFJM+r4NXZRNhcDLwamHO9OwBA=
To: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <20160705140143.22339.24069.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAE_dhjtc7VHZaMEu_rHZwbGKPvh1cxpsbV-BvFBYF_vp4zvehQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <102eb607-f1c5-9dc8-e7bb-fa5fd1daf838@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 12:22:48 +0100
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_dhjtc7VHZaMEu_rHZwbGKPvh1cxpsbV-BvFBYF_vp4zvehQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms060603090806050004050507"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/viOXtpd4FouF2LmUVKgFaLWYVCg>
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: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 11:25:43 -0000

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.)
>>
>>