IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPsec] Rekeying of child sa, Question on TS handling according to RFC 5996

"Valery Smyslov" <svanru@gmail.com> Thu, 21 August 2014 11:48 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 AE5E21A01F7 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 04:48:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Quarantine-ID: <lCezOW-HZsjq>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Non-encoded 8-bit data (char E5 hex): To: ...en" <kivinen@iki.fi>,\n\t"P\345l Dammvik" <pal[...]
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.638
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.638 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 lCezOW-HZsjq for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 04:48:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x230.google.com (mail-la0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0D121A01F2 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 04:48:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f48.google.com with SMTP id gl10so8372660lab.21 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 04:48:52 -0700 (PDT)
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=BksynOud7JRtJvG3u1SGQiJzzADGDAf0GUZpPKEKNss=; b=emCVJT+Aqxudp35A8y9PPzKOscCXHpiTQATVRdI9AE6mCqlZAQ3gEK7OS3V9Yl8hWG hea9o6ltz2hYpguGNNWk29KHvlxveRGw+HsaOE/y40vSh73XnshlmiTYqfVbIBuTSTjS Wh1cTRliFebFsa2FDlZq3GOgFZ2DQRaNrxll/rbj/KrZuyedZP+lTri9JLUkAas44wby bR82yo6BK+TfRrPNCyZgksmWvpyo/f4A8ra4pvdAoYuVIWeCPHGuKZMoqiC/AySBmJaD FDXPKhN7WtwB7QLBbmM9EVKn3niA4lA1k9RzwaoOOChLW2DoAUXG7Rk2MWRWzZGw2J+q y9gg==
X-Received: by 10.112.56.206 with SMTP id c14mr44748728lbq.27.1408621732096; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 04:48:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from buildpc ([93.188.44.200]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id du2sm5428742lac.25.2014.08.21.04.48.50 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 21 Aug 2014 04:48:51 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <257268920DEA479E9FC65BFA164783C2@buildpc>
From: Valery Smyslov <svanru@gmail.com>
To: Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>, P�l Dammvik <pal.dammvik@ericsson.com>
References: <F68C660364DABE41AF4617F517EF548411707BE2@ESESSMB309.ericsson.se> <21493.55390.157248.181030@fireball.kivinen.iki.fi>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 15:49:09 +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/JSyXwCJR-1mZ_uTg8EO-nclOAw4
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org, sec-ads@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Rekeying of child sa, Question on TS handling according to 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: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 11:48:56 -0000

Hi Tero,

> This is also question what should we do for the rfc5996bis.
> 
> We have two options, we removed the text saying section 2.9.2 was
> added in the RFC5996, or we add the section 2.9.2 from the ticket #12,
> and add note that saying that this time we really added it...
> 
> What does the working group feel we should do? Note, that if we add
> the 2.9.2 that might cause delays, as I am not sure if we can do that
> kind of change after IESG has already approved the rfc5996bis (it is
> now in the AUTH48), meaning it might need IESG to recheck that part.
> 
> On the other hand I think adding the text which we already have
> approved in 2009 to the specification would be the right thing to do,
> as there clearly is need for clarification (as we can see from the
> Dammvik's question). 

I think we should add this text. The text is useful and I don't see
a reason to sacrifice it in favour to speed up RFC publication.

Regards,
Valery.

> kivinen@iki.fi

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email