IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPsec] Avoiding Authentication Header (AH)

"Bhatia, Manav (Manav)" <manav.bhatia@alcatel-lucent.com> Wed, 04 January 2012 14:22 UTC

Return-Path: <manav.bhatia@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19F1C21F855B for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 06:22:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.576
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.576 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.023, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 c1GgSdQLhjxy for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 06:22:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com (ihemail1.lucent.com [135.245.0.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DDB721F8558 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 06:22:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from inbansmailrelay1.in.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-250-11-31.lucent.com [135.250.11.31]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id q04EMEiK003761 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 4 Jan 2012 08:22:16 -0600 (CST)
Received: from INBANSXCHHUB01.in.alcatel-lucent.com (inbansxchhub01.in.alcatel-lucent.com [135.250.12.32]) by inbansmailrelay1.in.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id q04EMDaV023500 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 4 Jan 2012 19:52:13 +0530
Received: from INBANSXCHMBSA1.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.38]) by INBANSXCHHUB01.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.32]) with mapi; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 19:52:13 +0530
From: "Bhatia, Manav (Manav)" <manav.bhatia@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "mcr@sandelman.ca" <mcr@sandelman.ca>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 19:52:12 +0530
Thread-Topic: [IPsec] Avoiding Authentication Header (AH)
Thread-Index: AczK62s0rxNA02jcTC6CzLY1/sihQQAAFiNw
Message-ID: <7C362EEF9C7896468B36C9B79200D8350D028A2AE5@INBANSXCHMBSA1.in.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <7C362EEF9C7896468B36C9B79200D8350D028A2953@INBANSXCHMBSA1.in.alcatel-lucent.com> <6442.1325686562@marajade.sandelman.ca>
In-Reply-To: <6442.1325686562@marajade.sandelman.ca>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.33
Cc: "ipsec@ietf.org" <ipsec@ietf.org>, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Avoiding Authentication Header (AH)
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipsec>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 14:22:20 -0000

Hi Marc,

We don't say that. 4301 says that implementations MAY support AH and MUST support ESP.

This creates a problem for implementations if in future a new application or a protocol mandates the use of AH. 

I will even go a step further and say that newer protocols should just assume ESP-NULL and not even bother with AH if they can do with just ESP.

Cheers, Manav

-----Original Message-----
From: mcr@sandelman.ca [mailto:mcr@sandelman.ca] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 7:46 PM
To: Bhatia, Manav (Manav)
Cc: Nico Williams; ipsec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Avoiding Authentication Header (AH)


>>>>> "Manav" == Manav Bhatia <Bhatia> writes:
    Manav> Hi Nico,
 
    >> Advising (and updating said advice as circumstances change)
    >> use-IPsec protocol designers as to when to use ESP and/or AH is
    >> something we should do.  Deprecating AH seems like a nice idea,
    >> but if there's good reasons to still use it, then maybe not.

    Manav> We're not talking about deprecating or killing AH. I concede
    Manav> that I did allude to it in my first draft, but then changed
    Manav> the tone based on the WG feedback, to say that we should
    Manav> "avoid" AH wherever possible.

This is the status quo already.
Why do we need this draft?

-- 
]       He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life!           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
   Kyoto Plus: watch the video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE>
	               then sign the petition.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email