IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPsec] Stephen Farrell's Yes on draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc7321bis-05: (with COMMENT)

Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 15 March 2017 06:58 UTC

Return-Path: <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29E5612967A; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 23:58:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 LDeZPSbFPVuw; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 23:58:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x242.google.com (mail-wm0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 882DE129677; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 23:58:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x242.google.com with SMTP id z63so3077207wmg.2; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 23:58:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=UMywmhBTzPWMgCskKyjqzZFTil9pJek9nBJo7BxgSdo=; b=oa1sW4nHEQl/uf6J1XHPk3fhSdMt9JdbHZg8fIB4Ala5RHovfCbSGZwsBWJ0TvqJmU 402SqnZ6+voBJNct7m72Tv86+w0+PYFTI6xzJrvv7UjszkYoDd/u4qJ8BGbB9XGrGluW XUqmEnJdA/hM7qiRDnk9kcA0SXGyYf1i4PJ11vS27UkagcevUvciNKRNZSqaFmjwOM++ 9fEMEX7K+YV1V2jaL09uCsSfS1NrmhBapLtnUZvNiQiviTvKj6ukTXcVUV+lqJZ+Wf56 yGjZo/E3Tgmi+jI/+h2J1JlVEZfIKYaJl0u3SCtw8ykBht4a5XRBb6d2KPTn1tfSqy2c 4B+g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=UMywmhBTzPWMgCskKyjqzZFTil9pJek9nBJo7BxgSdo=; b=nVicSxVDXMXHAZMVFXM5nq9IFnQiajyRWOjuD1fPEIFb4Bq76SRE0zlawbg7QbK4UB usT+46JLdHyZR7rG1RfAlHk9zfoE59ABJRtBKXn0Eh7yjkRrSfiUoxC1SBftZhMEuKJP P9+yHSxy8IeFOklbuE6g0I9LAeaUReJy3tNxfhjsgfJfQceG93ZOiFIpLhzPaC3LFta/ CgrTtXzZBsWbJ3EP4KhPr9TjJDz+T7DA+L20U8D3tsGRasdAC/oVvEDp1+a3KfVlQZrj eYqRzox5HAV1+rAEiCARq6/usCYkR4Re6YfTlhtDRnBvQ0T+3Zu+16zLw+jOdF/iKf87 lYkg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2Xb74KFY7s5HDTiac4VM45U986JD7aw51hopNYtSeH+6DoQlhkKqsy4uP705r9hw==
X-Received: by 10.28.7.20 with SMTP id 20mr2731603wmh.115.1489561092088; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 23:58:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.137.86] ([109.253.147.134]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m83sm18149735wmc.33.2017.03.14.23.58.10 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 14 Mar 2017 23:58:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <459BC926-6E26-4B5E-B3CA-B1DAF3D58DCF@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_AF173E2E-44B4-40E8-9C3F-9AC50DF023B5"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 08:58:08 +0200
In-Reply-To: <148954159755.24347.12366542904819082480.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc7321bis@ietf.org, David Waltermire <david.waltermire@nist.gov>, ipsecme-chairs@ietf.org, ipsec@ietf.org
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <148954159755.24347.12366542904819082480.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/Syg3CNwwKuthsiPIoNgjYJGzoOE>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Stephen Farrell's Yes on draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc7321bis-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 15 Mar 2017 06:58:15 -0000

Hi.

I’d like to address the second comment.

> On 15 Mar 2017, at 3:33, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:

<snip/>

> - ENCR_NULL IMO ought be MUST NOT - did the WG discuss
> that explicitly?  If so, can you provide a pointer to the
> archive?  If not, does it still have to be a MUST?  I do
> wonder who wants to use AH via NAT but cannot, which seems
> to be the justification.

This was raised at some meeting, and it was claimed that people are using it. This includes other standards bodies like IEEE 1588.

Although I don’t think IEEE 1588 is ever used over NAT, we need ENCR_NULL if we are to pull AH out of implementations (and implementations have been removing AH for years. It’s practically deprecated)

Yoav

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email