Re: [IPsec] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-10: (with COMMENT)

[Valery Smyslov <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ben,

> On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 05:41:59PM +0300, Valery Smyslov wrote:
> >
> > > Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
> > > draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-10: No Objection
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > COMMENT:
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> [...]
> >
> > > -- Recommend explaining the notation/relationship between the “prime
> > > versions”
> > > of the sub-keys (i.e., SK_d’ and SK_pi’ and SK_pr’) in the this SKEYSEED
> > > formula with the SKEYSEED formula in Section 2.14 of [RFC72196].
> >
> > I'm not sure I fully understand what you mean.
> > I think we provide formulas of how prime and non-prime versions
> > are correlated (i.e. how non-prime versions are computed from prime
> versions).
> > Am I missing something?
> 
> I think the idea is something in the general vicinity of "the un-primed
> values SK_d, SK_pi, and SK_pr are used as inputs to subsequent steps of the
> IKEv2 exchange; this document uses the primed versions to represent the
> output of prf+ that are used directly in regular IKEv2, in order to
> introduce an additional operation (combination with PPK) between prf+ and
> subsequant usage".  A reader looking at this document and RFC 7296
> side-by-side will see that where RFC 7296 sets {SK_d [...]} = prf+
> (SKEYSEED, [...]), this document uses the "primed" versions, and might
> wonder what's different between SK_d (RFC 7296) and SK_d' (this
> document).

Thank you for clarification, we'll add similar clarification to the draft.

Regards,
Valery.

> -Ben