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

[Paul Wouters <[e-mail]>]

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