[IPsec] #122: Integrity proposals with combined algorithms

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Tue, 24 November 2009 00:32 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 D11373A6939 for <ipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:32:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.942
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.942 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.104, 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 ISFAymZSnGeD for <ipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:32:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from balder-227.proper.com (Balder-227.Proper.COM [192.245.12.227]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FCB13A6778 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:32:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.20.30.158] (75-101-30-90.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [75.101.30.90]) (authenticated bits=0) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id nAO0Wks9044030 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:32:47 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06240846c730da1a07f5@[10.20.30.158]>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:32:43 -0800
To: IPsecme WG <ipsec@ietf.org>
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: [IPsec] #122: Integrity proposals with combined algorithms
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: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:32:52 -0000

The 4th paragraph of section 3.3 says "If an algorithm that combines encryption and integrity protection is proposed, it MUST be proposed as an encryption algorithm and an integrity protection algorithm MUST NOT be proposed." This means that an integrity protection algorithm can only be proposed with a Transform ID equal to NONE, given that a few paragraphs above, it says: "Combined-mode ciphers include both integrity and encryption in a single encryption algorithm, and are not allowed to be offered with a separate integrity algorithm other than "none"." We should thus make this clear in the 4th paragraph.

HOWEVER, in section 3.3.2, in the table for transform types, it says:
   Integrity Algorithm (INTEG)     3       IKE*, AH, optional in ESP
  (*) Negotiating an integrity algorithm is mandatory for the
  Encrypted payload format specified in this document. For example,
  [AEAD] specifies additional formats based on authenticated
  encryption, in which a separate integrity algorithm is not
  negotiated.
The second sentence seems wrong. Proposed rewording:
  For example,
  [AEAD] specifies additional formats based on authenticated
  encryption, in which the integrity algorithm is an inherent
  part of the combined algorithm; in this case, the
  integrity algorithm is specified as "none".

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium