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

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Wed, 08 February 2012 12:53 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.com>
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 A606B21F858B for <hokey@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 04:53:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.594
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.594 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.405, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_23=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 b+jVYynNwksd for <hokey@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 04:53:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FF3221F8510 for <hokey@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 04:53:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LZ200DH3RSRI1@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for hokey@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:53:16 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LZ200BD8RSQRX@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for hokey@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:53:15 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxeml211-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AGY54103; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:53:00 +0800
Received: from SZXEML412-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.91) by szxeml211-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.182) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:52:19 +0800
Received: from w53375q (10.138.41.130) by szxeml412-hub.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.91) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:52:44 +0800
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:52:42 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
X-Originating-IP: [10.138.41.130]
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, Tina TSOU <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com>
Message-id: <E97BCF9E7A34470B9143D2F62222294A@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
References: <4F2AA2F8.4010004@ericsson.com> <4F2AA5E2.2040106@cs.tcd.ie> <20857042-B4A9-4861-8AC2-5E7324DFEE16@huawei.com> <4F325F78.5070701@cs.tcd.ie>
Cc: miguel.a.garcia@ericsson.com, 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 12:53:28 -0000

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>om>; <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