IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPsec] #122: Integrity proposals with combined algorithms

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Wed, 25 November 2009 17:29 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Original-To: ipsec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B2183A6A62; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:29:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.006
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.006 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.040, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nbgc1sPth+M2; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:29:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from balder-227.proper.com (Balder-227.Proper.COM [192.245.12.227]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD4BA3A6843; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:29:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.20.30.158] (75-101-30-90.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [75.101.30.90]) (authenticated bits=0) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id nAPHTEsQ075793 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:29:15 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06240826c733199b72e8@[10.20.30.158]>
In-Reply-To: <OF68D7C7F4.8EA0CD30-ON85257679.005AE6AD-85257679.005B1626@us.ibm.com>
References: <p06240846c730da1a07f5@[10.20.30.158]> <19211.59597.904754.490768@fireball.kivinen.iki.fi> <p06240861c731caf4cd1a@[10.20.30.158]> <19213.11094.860914.790618@fireball.kivinen.iki.fi> <p06240821c7330b32121e@[10.20.30.158]> <OF68D7C7F4.8EA0CD30-ON85257679.005AE6AD-85257679.005B1626@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:29:10 -0800
To: Scott C Moonen <smoonen@us.ibm.com>
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: IPsecme WG <ipsec@ietf.org>, ipsec-bounces@ietf.org, Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] #122: Integrity proposals with combined algorithms
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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, 25 Nov 2009 17:29:21 -0000

At 11:34 AM -0500 11/25/09, Scott C Moonen wrote:
> > MUST either offer no integrity algorithm or a single integrity algorithm of "none"
>>
>> Does anyone have a problem with this new wording?
>
>I suggest we specify that one or the other as the preferred approach.  Maybe add an additional sentence saying SHOULD for no transform and MAY for transform=none?

I hate honing down that far: it confuses future developers. How about:

MUST either offer no integrity algorithm or a single integrity algorithm of "none", with no integrity algorithm being the preferred method

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email