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

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Tue, 04 March 2014 09:55 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E5571A0496 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 01:55:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.547
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RzOVSgX0gFwN for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 01:55:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B01CE1A049F for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 01:55:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA8E4800AF; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 04:54:56 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; 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 bofh.nohats.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) with ESMTP id s249suu5002536; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 04:54:56 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: bofh.nohats.ca: paul owned process doing -bs
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 04:54:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Valery Smyslov <svanru@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <01FD5F789A0A406F9CCFC3033EA6721B@buildpc>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.10.1403040450410.1910@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <B1B032692C7045B7AEA06166F8AC9B9F@buildpc> <21268.39396.785431.297271@fireball.kivinen.iki.fi> <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
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/xlZJoegZcxy5aID1wVBIVaqQodM
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org, Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-smyslov-ipsecme-ikev2-null-auth-01.txt
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <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, 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 1.2.3.4 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.

Paul