Re: [HOKEY] Fwd: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-hokey-erp-aak-07

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Wed, 08 February 2012 16:45 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: hokey@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hokey@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28C2721F86DF; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 08:45:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.149
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_23=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UWVquEMrRESe; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 08:45:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from scss.tcd.ie (hermes.cs.tcd.ie [IPv6:2001:770:10:200:889f:cdff:fe8d:ccd2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 782DC21F8617; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 08:45:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BAF1171C91; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 16:45:35 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:in-reply-to:references :subject:mime-version:user-agent:from:date:message-id:received :received:x-virus-scanned; s=cs; t=1328719534; bh=Y0XiOc+1BGwLBw ZiB8o668Mh2d+oAcGhlOwsYxlASZg=; b=3p2bis5GWtmIdlDpjH6HNf+2VohCAk shEZWugiOHRyxHphc3SsXQaZi517913ADxb0x8WrEFDcacSm/altEWUprI549Dss memS21SuuuuQcG6Rl76LeCh0El1xHpnrLkxTbO5afPg6OQyPkC75tlbOLyW1fcPK qYPQnUfehR9ihrh/h+g2ivabdkM7FtaekY9WkN3e+70pxG36Z9v2cCcMT5r9pq4W TaL5/pCOfcbEsnE+2ZGqBp2wRB49GScHJOJ6It1COkW6biB/uzmqEuGgcjn2/7zG shIC8aco89YMUDsJtAiOIoX1rfY6z2+PYtc3SyJtdH0gEitYaNA1PYfA==
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10027) with ESMTP id 3Y5WgGqKNBZY; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 16:45:34 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [134.226.36.180] (stephen-think.dsg.cs.tcd.ie [134.226.36.180]) by smtp.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5E092171C2F; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 16:45:27 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <4F32A6A8.3010502@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:45:28 +0000
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Miguel A. Garcia" <Miguel.A.Garcia@ericsson.com>
References: <4F2AA2F8.4010004@ericsson.com> <4F2AA5E2.2040106@cs.tcd.ie> <20857042-B4A9-4861-8AC2-5E7324DFEE16@huawei.com> <4F325F78.5070701@cs.tcd.ie> <E97BCF9E7A34470B9143D2F62222294A@china.huawei.com> <4F32802B.8090007@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F32802B.8090007@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, "hokey@ietf.org" <hokey@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [HOKEY] Fwd: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-hokey-erp-aak-07
X-BeenThere: hokey@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: HOKEY WG Mailing List <hokey.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/hokey>, <mailto:hokey-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hokey>
List-Post: <mailto:hokey@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hokey-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hokey>, <mailto:hokey-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:45:57 -0000

Thanks Miguel,

(cc'ing gen-art to close that loop)

S.

On 02/08/2012 02:01 PM, Miguel A. Garcia wrote:
> I did a quick past to the changes that I requested, and I think they are
> successfully implemented in version -08.
>
> /Miguel
>
> On 08/02/2012 13:52, Qin Wu wrote:
>> Hi, Stephen and all:
>> We have just done the update. Diff from previous version:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-hokey-erp-aak-08
>>
>> Would you like to go ahead?
>>
>> Regards!
>> -Qin
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Stephen Farrell"<stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
>> To: "Tina TSOU"<Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com>
>> Cc:<miguel.a.garcia@ericsson.com>;<hokey@ietf.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 7:41 PM
>> Subject: Re: [HOKEY] Fwd: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-hokey-erp-aak-07
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> IETF LC is ended for this.
>>>
>>> I think the only comment I saw a gen-art review (is
>>> that right?) but that there are changes resulting from
>>> that so I've marked this as revised I-D needed. Please
>>> submit a -08 that includes the changes needed. (I'm not
>>> sure if any of those will require something different
>>> from IANA, but if they do please also respond to IANA's
>>> mail, cc'ing me, if their actions are changed.)
>>>
>>> As soon as we have that I can put this on an IESG
>>> telechat agenda,
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Stephen.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 02/04/2012 07:21 PM, Tina TSOU wrote:
>>>> Good catch. Thank u, Miguel.
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 2, 2012, at 7:04 AM, "Stephen
>>>> Farrell"<stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> FYI
>>>>>
>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>> Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-hokey-erp-aak-07
>>>>> Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 15:51:36 +0100
>>>>> From: Miguel A. Garcia<Miguel.A.Garcia@ericsson.com>
>>>>> To: Zhen Cao<zehn.cao@gmail.com>om>, Hui Deng<denghui02@gmail.com>om>,
>>>>> sunseawq@huawei.com, Stephen Farrell<stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
>>>>> CC: General Area Review Team<gen-art@ietf.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
>>>>> reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the
>>>>> FAQ at
>>>>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please resolve these comments along with any other comments you may
>>>>> receive.
>>>>>
>>>>> Document: draft-ietf-hokey-erp-aak-07
>>>>> Reviewer: Miguel Garcia<miguel.a.garcia@ericsson.com>
>>>>> Review Date: 2011-01-02
>>>>> IETF LC End Date: 2012-02-07
>>>>>
>>>>> Summary: This draft is on the right track but has open issues,
>>>>> described
>>>>> in the review.
>>>>>
>>>>> Major issues:
>>>>>
>>>>> - None
>>>>>
>>>>> Minor issues:
>>>>>
>>>>> - The main problem I have with this draft is the lack of normative
>>>>> text
>>>>> (RFC 2119 reserved words) in relevant paragraphs. If
>>>>> interoperability is
>>>>> to be granted, an effort should be taken in adding quite a few more
>>>>> normative statements.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, having said that, the section where I find more that there
>>>>> should be more normative text, is Section 3, which is an "Overview"
>>>>> section. In general, an overview section should use descriptive,
>>>>> but not
>>>>> normative text.
>>>>>
>>>>> For example, take the last paragraph in Page 5 (that continues to Page
>>>>> 6). One possible change is to make normative the text and move it
>>>>> outside
>>>>> a section whose title is "Overview".
>>>>>
>>>>> Upon receiving the message, the ERP/AAK server MUST first use the
>>>>> keyName indicated in the keyName-NAI to look up the rIK and MUST
>>>>> check the integrity and freshness of the message. Then the ERP/AAK
>>>>> server MUST verify the identity of the peer by checking the username
>>>>> portion of the KeyName-NAI. If any of the checks fail, the server
>>>>> MUST send an early- authentication finish message (EAP-Finish/Re-auth
>>>>> with E-flag set) with the Result flag set to '1'. Next, the server
>>>>> MUST authorize the CAP specified in the CAP-Identifier TLV. In
>>>>> success case, the server MUST derive a pMSK from the pRK for each CAP
>>>>> carried in the the CAP-Identifier field using the sequence number
>>>>> associated with CAP-Identifier as an input to the key derivation.
>>>>> (see d. in the figure 1).
>>>>>
>>>>> Then the ERP/AAK server MUST transport the pMSK to the authorized CAP
>>>>> via AAA Section 7 as described in figure 2 (see e.1,e.2 in the figure
>>>>> 2). Note that key distribution in the figure 2 is one part of step d.
>>>>> in the figure 1.
>>>>>
>>>>> The the last paragraph in Section 3 also contains an "Optionally",
>>>>> which
>>>>> I believe should be replaced with a capitalized "OPTIONAL"
>>>>>
>>>>> Another instance: towards the end of Section 5.2, the text reads:
>>>>>
>>>>> HMAC-SHA256-128 is mandatory to implement and should be enabled in
>>>>> the default configuration.
>>>>>
>>>>> and should probably be:
>>>>>
>>>>> HMAC-SHA256-128 is REQUIRED to be implemented and SHOULD be enabled in
>>>>> the default configuration.
>>>>>
>>>>> Similarly, the last paragraph in Section 5.2 reads:
>>>>>
>>>>> If the EAP-Initiate/Re-auth packet is not supported by the SAP, it is
>>>>> discarded silently.
>>>>>
>>>>> and should probably be:
>>>>>
>>>>> If the EAP-Initiate/Re-auth packet is not supported by the SAP, it
>>>>> SHOULD be discarded silently.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> - Another topic, Section 9 (IANA Considerations) reads:
>>>>>
>>>>> Further, this document registers a Early authentication usage label
>>>>> from the "USRK Key Labels" name space with a value:
>>>>>
>>>>> EAP Early-Authentication Root Key@ietf.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am missing the sentence to name the master registry where the
>>>>> USRK Key
>>>>> Labels subregistry is stored. This is the Extended Master Session Key
>>>>> (EMSK) Parameters registry (I guess). And probably this comment is
>>>>> also
>>>>> valid for the rest of the IANA actions: the main registry is not
>>>>> named,
>>>>> and it is hard to find it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> /Miguel
>>>>> --
>>>>> Miguel A. Garcia
>>>>> +34-91-339-3608
>>>>> Ericsson Spain
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> HOKEY mailing list
>>>>> HOKEY@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hokey
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> HOKEY mailing list
>>> HOKEY@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hokey
>