Re: [IPsec] [I2nsf] Review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-03

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Tue, 20 November 2018 15:14 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 7FAEF1286E3; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 07:14:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 J_wjjvNckiNb; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 07:14:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C88E12D4F2; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 07:14:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42zq445RnlzL8Y; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 16:14:12 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1542726852; bh=j9upps1QBoMULWL/w9Nl89F5kPTZ9K6jgeuPEBbKn3Q=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=DhJntbCHzozgi2i17KwTO0xygKJXzMCGloksclGT2yYVFK0XVoXW/5FmtwI7sknuj HFBoW2s5+hA5LXk8M1F2Si5aPlcaYhpK4zDH1qMyvj0KbpUeTiKebbpfFvp0JLrPUz NgWAcR00un9JjzW2qL+2di2C+Y4bxRB4eGtE4OJ4=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EF48xHXtH_-q; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 16:14:11 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 16:14:11 +0100 (CET)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 98A7D4AA4C6; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 10:14:10 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca 98A7D4AA4C6
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B45441C3B2D; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 10:14:10 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 10:14:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Rafa Marin Lopez <rafa@um.es>
cc: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>, i2nsf@ietf.org, "ipsec@ietf.org WG" <ipsec@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAD4C539-B4D9-4545-81E6-0AEA71C10FAC@um.es>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1811201010120.7962@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <A881C135-9BF7-4E93-BB7A-75EB3D1FF605@gmail.com> <6839D47C-4074-486F-9350-8EB7B378036C@um.es> <DAE14995-8504-4134-B021-93D56A4994FB@gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1811180149220.25604@bofh.nohats.ca> <CAD4C539-B4D9-4545-81E6-0AEA71C10FAC@um.es>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LRH 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/dwbr-uk4v4hpDwP3DhckerqHJb0>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] [I2nsf] Review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-03
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 15:14:15 -0000

On Mon, 19 Nov 2018, Rafa Marin Lopez wrote:

>> Based on the introduction and abstract of the draft, this document does two things:
>>
>> 1) Specify a yang model for use with SDWAN + IKE + IPsec
>> 2) Define the desired modes and algorithms to use with 1)
>>
>> It does not try to map the entire IKE/IPsec IANA registry into a yang model. Let me know if this is incorrect, because I use
>> this as an assumption for the remainder of the review.
>
> We must say that our I-D specifies 1) but being SDWAN one of the possible scenarios to operate so that the intent was to map the IKE/IPsec IANA registry. In any case we can change that approach if the WG consider is the right way to proceed.

Then I would stick with RFC 8221 and RFC 8247 entries that have SHOULD
or MUST (and not include MUST- or SHOULD-)

So if any other new uses are defined, they don't try to use obsoleted or
decayed algorithms.

Paul