[IPsec] IKE negotiation for diet-esp
Robert Moskowitz <rgm-sec@htt-consult.com> Thu, 12 May 2022 12:26 UTC
Return-Path: <rgm-sec@htt-consult.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 0C3A0C157B4C for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 May 2022 05:26:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FgzzbWCP9HOv for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 May 2022 05:26:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from z9m9z.htt-consult.com (z9m9z.htt-consult.com [23.123.122.147]) (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 74931C14F739 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 May 2022 05:26:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by z9m9z.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF54462569 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 May 2022 08:25:54 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at htt-consult.com
Received: from z9m9z.htt-consult.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (z9m9z.htt-consult.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id gRzAg2xA4Cxu for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 May 2022 08:25:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.160.11] (unknown [192.168.160.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by z9m9z.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7E3C16247F for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 May 2022 08:25:47 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <46e5fd12-94eb-6888-ebc6-4a1b6bf2339e@htt-consult.com>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 08:26:30 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0
To: ipsec@ietf.org
Content-Language: en-US
From: Robert Moskowitz <rgm-sec@htt-consult.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/wxftqpPLGFGryxu6vnZ8_rQs5yM>
Subject: [IPsec] IKE negotiation for diet-esp
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
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: Thu, 12 May 2022 12:26:43 -0000
The draft talks about the EHC Context to be exchanged via IKE, but I do not see this in the draft? Negotiating the whole Context may be quite a bit and needs to be thought out in a secure sense? But just negotiating a SCHC RuleID may be simplier. this could be the sole tie-in with SCHC as the actual SCHC RuleID never goes over the wire. The SPIs imply the RuleID. There could be some additional pieces like if the RuleID is for UDP-Transport, the UDP ports for the SPI pair could be sent so one RuleID could serve multiple UDP apps. But I kind of assume that as there is a code implementation, there is a good understanding of what is needed, but I don't see it in the draft. Pointers are appreciated. Bob
- [IPsec] IKE negotiation for diet-esp Robert Moskowitz