Re: [IPsec] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-smyslov-ipsecme-ikev2-null-auth-01.txt

"Valery Smyslov" <svanru@gmail.com> Tue, 04 March 2014 11:46 UTC

Return-Path: <svanru@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23B041A0041 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 03:46:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.161
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.161 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.439] autolearn=no
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 w3blTn8AV4Ve for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 03:46:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-x235.google.com (mail-la0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E11EA1A0033 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 03:46:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-la0-f53.google.com with SMTP id b8so5585216lan.12 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 03:46:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:from:to:cc:references:subject:date:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=PJCf8yCFnYaz9HODXPGZ2hjr1I24DFutGsJkSanUOaY=; b=M81AIzNYsmLgACWfOxJcib+DRT6iUeba1Bvc34lPS4HmTHmC7B3iqpqubyHQhjSV1F zE6G7UOCv2Qzl4VOCc+Y8V4NrxFwZTEdFwdOlKsFoR/yphgbMxmr/MG+cNNvq/AmntbT PeIdDlyfAO1xXQGWQq2hSKRWiZk3BSis09RKvOALNQkFCiBlIYfgWe/IPOKdFbkMtA6N QfEiThKLJji4nuCY1sZHKwZIIZgdwTRoXFrYNRpV/U/f06C/zLVOMuPRIwQZiwv7GqA/ DIFrpn4GbDsKige0LHS+BzUe30XsncYvINgxmOJ6WQRi+XcnEXFbqhKs9E9kY6aKOOmr tTQg==
X-Received: by 10.112.131.66 with SMTP id ok2mr25483968lbb.15.1393933602139; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 03:46:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from buildpc ([93.188.44.200]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id h7sm19397550lbj.1.2014.03.04.03.46.40 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 04 Mar 2014 03:46:41 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4E18E9585BAC49EABF54E1DC547A4273@buildpc>
From: "Valery Smyslov" <svanru@gmail.com>
To: "Tero Kivinen" <kivinen@iki.fi>, "Paul Wouters" <paul@cypherpunks.ca>
References: <B1B032692C7045B7AEA06166F8AC9B9F@buildpc><21268.39396.785431.297271@fireball.kivinen.iki.fi><01FD5F789A0A406F9CCFC3033EA6721B@buildpc><alpine.LFD.2.10.1403040450410.1910@bofh.nohats.ca><21269.44464.979543.950214@fireball.kivinen.iki.fi><alpine.LFD.2.10.1403040603500.1910@bofh.nohats.ca> <21269.47282.170859.595467@fireball.kivinen.iki.fi>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 15:46:59 +0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/5xmkySsBRthwB6PzwZvXkGztthY
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-smyslov-ipsecme-ikev2-null-auth-01.txt
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 11:46:47 -0000

Hi Tero,

> IKEv1 did allow sending payloads in any order, if I remember right.

Right, but with some restrictions (e.g. HASH Payload in QM must go before 
other Payloads).

> Hmm... funny typo in section 1:
>
>   o  User wants to get anonymous access to some resource.  In this
>      situation he/she should be able to authenticate server, but to
>      leave out his/her own authentication to prevent anonymity.  In
>      this case one-way authentication is desirable.
>
> user will leave out authentication to PREVENT anonymity... I assume
> preserve is the one word that was meant...

Yes, of course. Thanks for catching.

And in -01 draft I've added one more use case:

   o  User wants to get some simple action from remote device.  Consider
      garage door opener: it must authenticate user to open the door,
      but it is not necessary for the user to authenticate the door
      opener.  In this case one-way authentication is sufficient.

In this example there is no harm if garage door opener
fills in its ID Payload - it need not be anonymous.

Regards,
Valery.