[IPsec] Minor thinko in IKEv2 rfc5996bis draft (and RFC 5996)

Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi> Mon, 19 May 2014 14:16 UTC

Return-Path: <kivinen@iki.fi>
X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8736E1A036F for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 May 2014 07:16:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.552
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HtNVzay5zsHM for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 May 2014 07:16:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.kivinen.iki.fi (fireball.kivinen.iki.fi [IPv6:2001:1bc8:100d::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 335A61A0015 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 May 2014 07:16:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fireball.kivinen.iki.fi (localhost []) by mail.kivinen.iki.fi (8.14.8/8.14.8) with ESMTP id s4JEGKqK009536 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 19 May 2014 17:16:20 +0300 (EEST)
Received: (from kivinen@localhost) by fireball.kivinen.iki.fi (8.14.8/8.14.8/Submit) id s4JEGJpd010353; Mon, 19 May 2014 17:16:19 +0300 (EEST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <21370.4659.308156.313468@fireball.kivinen.iki.fi>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 17:16:19 +0300
From: Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>
To: "Black\, David" <david.black@emc.com>
In-Reply-To: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE712076C55BC0C@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
References: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE712076C55BC0C@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
X-Mailer: VM 8.2.0b under 24.3.1 (x86_64--netbsd)
X-Edit-Time: 2 min
X-Total-Time: 2 min
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/76wqwlvjLELp8AjR16tiaQJzPes
Cc: "IPsecme WG \(ipsec@ietf.org\)" <ipsec@ietf.org>
Subject: [IPsec] Minor thinko in IKEv2 rfc5996bis draft (and RFC 5996)
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: Mon, 19 May 2014 14:16:37 -0000

Black, David writes:
> In looking for something else, I ran across a minor thinko in the
> rfc5996bis draft that was inherited from RFC 5996.
> Section 3.14, Encrypted Payload, 4th paragraph:
>    When an authenticated encryption algorithm is used to protect the IKE
>    SA, the construction of the Encrypted payload is different than what
>    is described here.  See [AEAD] for more information on authenticated
>    encryption algorithms and their use in ESP.
> [AEAD] is a reference to RFC 5282, "Using Authenticated Encryption
> Algorithms with the Encrypted Payload of the Internet Key Exchange
> version 2 (IKEv2) Protocol."
> Hence, a change is in order at the end of the paragraph:
> 	"ESP" -> "IKEv2"
> In the unlikely event that the IESG finds nothing else to change in
> the draft :-), an RFC Editor Note ought to suffice to handle this.

Thanks. I made the change in the current xml file, i.e. so next time I
make new version this change will be there.

> Should I also file an erratum against RFC 5996?

I do not think we want to do that, as then I would have to publish new
version immediately, as the draft-kivinen-ipsecme-ikev2-rfc5996bis
says it has fixes for all errata...