IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPsec] RFC4869 bis submitted

Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@sun.com> Thu, 19 November 2009 21:51 UTC

Return-Path: <sommerfeld@sun.com>
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 73EA23A699E for <ipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:51:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.046
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.046 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 QF-W-DKafvMJ for <ipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:51:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from brmea-mail-1.sun.com (brmea-mail-1.Sun.COM [192.18.98.31]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 960683A67A5 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:51:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dm-sfbay-02.sfbay.sun.com ([129.146.11.31]) by brmea-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id nAJLpcLA027499; Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:51:38 GMT
Received: from thunk-west.local (dhcp-mpk17-108-155.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.108.155]) by dm-sfbay-02.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.4) with ESMTP id nAJLpbbZ027426; Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:51:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from thunk-west.local (thunk-west [127.0.0.1]) by thunk-west.local (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nAJLpbr9016076; Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:51:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from sommerfeld@localhost) by thunk-west.local (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3/Submit) id nAJLpbAS016075; Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:51:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Authentication-Warning: thunk-west.local: sommerfeld set sender to sommerfeld@sun.com using -f
From: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@sun.com>
To: "Law, Laurie" <lelaw@tycho.ncsc.mil>
In-Reply-To: <D22B261D1FA3CD48B0414DF484E43D3211B49B@celebration.infosec.tycho.ncsc.mil>
References: <D22B261D1FA3CD48B0414DF484E43D3211B49B@celebration.infosec.tycho.ncsc.mil>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:51:37 -0800
Message-ID: <1258667497.15596.206.camel@thunk-west>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [IPsec] RFC4869 bis submitted
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: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:51:41 -0000

On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:15 -0500, Law, Laurie wrote:
> This Internet-Draft makes several minor changes to the suites in RFC
> 4869 and incorporates comments that have been posted to the ipsec
> mailing list.

On reading the spec, it's not clear to me whether an IKEv1
implementation which supports ECP-based DH (rfc4753) with preshared keys
but not ECDSA (rfc4754) is considered to usefully implement this
specification.

As a practical matter, the ECDSA piece of this spec is likely to be the
largest and last piece built -- given a working elliptic curve codebase,
plugging ephemeral ECDH into an IKE implementation is a much smaller
problem than building ECDSA into both an IKE implementation and the PKI
client codebase, tools, and keystores it relies on.

							- Bill

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email