Re: [IPsec] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-smyslov-ipsecme-ikev2-null-auth-01.txt

Paul Wouters <> Tue, 04 March 2014 09:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E5571A0496 for <>; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 01:55:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.547
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.547 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RzOVSgX0gFwN for <>; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 01:55:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B01CE1A049F for <>; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 01:55:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA8E4800AF; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 04:54:56 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; t=1393926896; bh=IU6RNJox2incXwkB/+B6h14QMi+pPhVO6RAad+aFJAU=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=ocb8lrUT1QqwYxagPc+TrI86q4m/zUtdyuoZW/GEbt5Y2aIIzJUd7xyrXn2pWEOcW otsLNpFQkayyUppbeQBafElNZTAuJsUQM2yL1CXNkv21lTzbtsUF6wAsY+3AYWrWhd +Sn5O2KbOiTgWGItcTJpVZhOQmJ72WrTco5qY8xA=
Received: from localhost (paul@localhost) by (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) with ESMTP id s249suu5002536; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 04:54:56 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: paul owned process doing -bs
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 04:54:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Wouters <>
To: Valery Smyslov <>
In-Reply-To: <01FD5F789A0A406F9CCFC3033EA6721B@buildpc>
Message-ID: <>
References: <B1B032692C7045B7AEA06166F8AC9B9F@buildpc> <> <01FD5F789A0A406F9CCFC3033EA6721B@buildpc>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (LFD 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Cc:, Tero Kivinen <>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-smyslov-ipsecme-ikev2-null-auth-01.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 09:55:05 -0000

On Tue, 4 Mar 2014, Valery Smyslov wrote:

> I agree this may chocke some implementations. The idea was that
> if implementation notice that Auth Method is NULL, it must
> not parse ID Payload at all. But I understand that depending
> on the order in which payloads are processed by particular
> implementation, this may be inconvinient for implementers.

I have actually thought about a mode where we scramble the order or
payloads just to see which implementations would die :P

No implementation should depend on the order of payloads for anything.

> and require implementations to use it if they want to keep anonimity.

I feel someone wants to give an implementation the freedom to make an
unwise decision :P I really want to insist that anonymous means
anonymous - no methods for sending along an ID.

>> Actually I now noticed you changed the "SHOULD be ignored" to "MUST be
>> ignored", and I think that is again bad idea. I think logging and
>> auditing the ID for problem solving purposes is good idea even if it
>> does not have any meaning for the authentication. I.e. at least then I
>> can contact helpdesk and say that my NULL authentication connection to
>> server failed, and I have no idea why, can you help. Oh, my ID
>> payload had ID_KEY_ID 0324234mkdsff43r5, if that helps you to find it
>> from your logs... 
> Actually, I tried to address Paul Wouters' concern that without
> strong "MUST" here implementations may use ID even if it is
> not authenticated. But, from my understanding of the wording,
> "MUST be ignored by IKE" doesn't mean that implementation
> is not allowed to log the ID, that is always useful ror auditing
> and troubleshooting. I probably should make this more clear.

And I feel that I need to reject anonymous connections that have an ID
to protect the anonymity of the user.