Re: AH and ESP Orthogonality
William Allen Simpson <wsimpson@greendragon.com> Tue, 12 March 1996 19:47 UTC
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18399; 12 Mar 96 14:47 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18393; 12 Mar 96 14:47 EST
Received: from neptune.tis.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11129; 12 Mar 96 14:47 EST
Received: from neptune.tis.com by neptune.TIS.COM id aa17043; 12 Mar 96 14:07 EST
Received: from relay.tis.com by neptune.TIS.COM id aa17007; 12 Mar 96 14:03 EST
Received: by relay.tis.com; id OAA08017; Tue, 12 Mar 1996 14:05:39 -0500
Received: from sol.tis.com(192.33.112.100) by relay.tis.com via smap (V3.1) id xma007999; Tue, 12 Mar 96 14:05:12 -0500
Received: from relay.tis.com by tis.com (4.1/SUN-5.64) id AA10647; Tue, 12 Mar 96 14:04:11 EST
Received: by relay.tis.com; id OAA07989; Tue, 12 Mar 1996 14:05:09 -0500
Received: from merit.edu(35.1.1.42) by relay.tis.com via smap (V3.1) id xma007971; Tue, 12 Mar 96 14:04:41 -0500
Received: from Bill.Simpson.DialUp.Mich.Net (pm012-22.dialip.mich.net [141.211.7.190]) by merit.edu (8.7.4/merit-2.0) with SMTP id OAA29250 for <ipsec@TIS.COM>; Tue, 12 Mar 1996 14:05:43 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 18:15:56 +0000
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: William Allen Simpson <wsimpson@greendragon.com>
Message-Id: <5053.wsimpson@greendragon.com>
To: ipsec@tis.com
Subject: Re: AH and ESP Orthogonality
X-Orig-Sender: ipsec-request@neptune.tis.com
Precedence: bulk
> From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> > Having orthogonal transformations was not necessarily a bad idea, > but there are benefits to having a better division of responsibility > between AH and ESP. I agree. > For example, the current definition of AH is messy > because either AH covers the entirity of an IP datagram (minus mutuable IP > header fields) or it covers just upper layer protocols. The distinction is > a function of where AH appears relative to ESP. Several of us would prefer > a verison of AH that applied to the whole datagram (as described above), > period. > I understand. You raised this last year. But, other analysts prefered the AH "inside" ESP approach. So, there was no agreement. Instead, a flexible mechanism was defined, and the orthogonality allowed both approaches. Indeed, the chairs dictated to Jim Hughes in his DES+MD5 draft that the MD5 apply to the "inside" plaintext, rather than the "outside" ciphertext. There were objections raised from the WG, such as Karn. Outside allows detection of modification sooner, rather than after DES. As you may remember, I'm an "outy" myself. > It might be preferable if ESP defined > optional, variable length fields for carrying the necessary data to support > confidentiality and authentication and integrity. The specific fields used > for a given SA would be defined at SA establishment, nailing this down for > efficient per-packet processing. The result would be to make transform > definition documents more modular. > The result would be to make the transform documents much more difficult to understand and implement. The WG rejected the variable fields approach yet _again_ last week. Instead, we nail down the specific _transforms_ at SA establishment. Same result, easier to implement, easier to verify. > Several folks, including yours truly, have expressed a desire to > add an anti-replay feature into the IPSEC suite. This could be useful in > either AH or ESP, or both. I'm included in that "several folks". We discussed this last year, and again in January of this year. It's in our latest ESP revision, and in Photuris Extensions. But, as you may remember Atkinson's message: Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 12:29:13 -0800 Message-Id: <199602222029.MAA00276@puli.cisco.com> 5) Section 2.11 of draft-ietf-ipsec-photuris-ext-01.txt MUST be deleted. It is WAY outside the scope of Bill's draft to modify any standards track protocol and the attempt to do so is more than sufficient grounds to bar publication as ANY kind of RFC until that section is deleted. So, the chairs are rather vehemently against adding replay protection, even as a negotiated option. WSimpson@UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 BSimpson@MorningStar.com Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2
- AH and ESP Orthogonality William Allen Simpson
- Re: AH and ESP Orthogonality William Allen Simpson
- Re: AH and ESP Orthogonality William Allen Simpson
- Re: AH and ESP Orthogonality William Allen Simpson
- Re: AH and ESP Orthogonality Ran Atkinson
- Re: AH and ESP Orthogonality Perry E. Metzger
- Re: AH and ESP Orthogonality smb
- Re: AH and ESP Orthogonality PALAMBER.US.ORACLE.COM
- Re: AH and ESP Orthogonality Perry E. Metzger
- Re: AH and ESP Orthogonality Stephen Kent
- Re: AH and ESP Orthogonality Perry E. Metzger
- Re: AH and ESP Orthogonality Stephen Kent