Re: [IPsec] FW: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-storm-ipsec-ips-update-00.txt

Hi Yaron,

Thank you for the quick review.

> * The ref for AES-GMAC is RFC 3543, should be 4543.

That's embarrassing - not just off-by-1, but off-by-1000 :-).
I will definitely fix that in the -01.

> * 2.1: AES-GMAC and not AES-GCM? Authentication but no encryption?
> * The separation of GMAC and CTR, when we really want the combined-mode
> GCM, is very confusing.

See the end of 2.2.  AES CTR changes from MAY to SHOULD, and there's a SHOULD
for AES GCM.  I'll add a sentence after the two bullets at the start of 2.2
to make it clear that both requirements are being changed.

> * 3: why no must-implement DH group? Also, "when DH groups are used" -
> are there any cases when they're not?

I left the must-implement DH groups to the underlying IPsec specs; is it
important to repeat that here?

For no DH group, see IKEv1 Quick Mode without perfect forward secrecy,
and I need to add a sentence requiring PFS to be implemented for that case.
Text suggestions are welcome.

> * 3.1: I would expect a discussion here about correlation between IKE
> identity and the application protocol. E.g. are target names used as
> IKEv2 ID values? This probably makes more sense when iSCSI discovery is
> being used.

That belongs in an iSCSI-specific doc; this draft is generic to a number
of IP Storage protocols - e.g., iSCSI, FCIP, iFCP.

> * 3.1: (shameless plug...) instead of certs, PACE with an automatically
> generated PSK would be so much more convenient... See RFC 6631, Sec.
> 3.5+3.6. But of course it is only experimental, sigh.

Plug noted ;-).  Independently, FWIW, if there had not been IPR complications
at the time, SRP would have been the mandatory-to-implement inband
authentication mechanism for iSCSI (in the main iSCSI doc, not here).

Thanks,
--David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yaron Sheffer [mailto:yaronf.ietf@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 1:45 AM
> To: Black, David
> Cc: IPsecme WG
> Subject: Re: [IPsec] FW: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-storm-ipsec-ips-update-00.txt
> 
> Hi David,
> 
> * The ref for AES-GMAC is RFC 3543, should be 4543.
> * 2.1: AES-GMAC and not AES-GCM? Authentication but no encryption?
> * The separation of GMAC and CTR, when we really want the combined-mode
> GCM, is very confusing.
> * 3: why no must-implement DH group? Also, "when DH groups are used" -
> are there any cases when they're not?
> * 3.1: I would expect a discussion here about correlation between IKE
> identity and the application protocol. E.g. are target names used as
> IKEv2 ID values? This probably makes more sense when iSCSI discovery is
> being used.
> * 3.1: (shameless plug...) instead of certs, PACE with an automatically
> generated PSK would be so much more convenient... See RFC 6631, Sec.
> 3.5+3.6. But of course it is only experimental, sigh.
> 
> Thanks,
> 	Yaron
> 
> On 2013-06-05 23:30, Black, David wrote:
> > FYI - this draft is likely to move fairly quickly, with both
> > WG Last Call and the publication request that hands off draft from
> > the WG to the AD happening before the Berlin IETF meetings.
> >
> > WG Last Call in the storm WG is expected to start next week.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --David
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org]
> On Behalf Of Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 3:51 PM
> > To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
> > Cc: storm@ietf.org
> > Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-storm-ipsec-ips-update-00.txt
> >
> > A new Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> > This draft is a work item of the STORage Maintenance Working Group of the
> IETF.
> >
> >      Title         : IP Storage: IPsec Requirements Update for IPsec v3
> >      Author(s)     : D. Black, et al
> >      Filename      : draft-ietf-storm-ipsec-ips-update
> >      Pages         : 13
> >      Date          : June 5, 2013
> >
> >     RFC 3723 includes requirements for IPsec usage with IP Storage
> >     protocols (e.g., iSCSI) based on IPsec v2 (RFC 2401 and related
> >     RFCs).  This document updates those requirements to IPsec v3 (RFC
> >     4301 and related RFCs) and updates implementation requirements to
> >     reflect developments in cryptography since RFC 3723 was published.
> >
> >     [RFC Editor: The &quot;Updates:&quot; list above has been truncated by
> xml2rfc.
> >     The complete list is - Updates: 3720, 3723, 3821, 3822, 4018, 4172,
> >     4173, 4174, 5040, 5041, 5042, 5043, 5044, 5045, 5046, 5047, 5048 (if
> >     approved) ]
> >
> > A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-storm-ipsec-ips-update-00.txt
> >
> > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> >
> > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
> > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
> > Internet-Draft.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > IPsec mailing list
> > IPsec@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
> >