IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [karp] Last Call: <draft-ietf-karp-ops-model-07.txt> (Operations Model for Router Keying) to Informational RFC

Danny McPherson <danny@tcb.net> Mon, 29 July 2013 09:19 UTC

Return-Path: <danny@tcb.net>
X-Original-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E0F321F9C26 for <karp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 02:19:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.437
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N6A3P-Z5tgsJ for <karp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 02:19:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.friendswithtools.org (unknown [64.78.239.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F106121F9EEE for <karp@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 02:19:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dspam (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mail.friendswithtools.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B1CFC300050 for <karp@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 09:19:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [10.13.129.205] (unknown [81.92.22.186]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.friendswithtools.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AB18830004A; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 03:19:36 -0600 (MDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
From: Danny McPherson <danny@tcb.net>
In-Reply-To: <tsltxjdwxtv.fsf@mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 05:19:36 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <DEEFC821-D9C4-4CAF-9A60-0BBE024DD30C@tcb.net>
References: <20130729063557.22039.63212.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <tsltxjdwxtv.fsf@mit.edu>
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
X-DSPAM-Result: Innocent
X-DSPAM-Processed: Mon Jul 29 03:19:37 2013
X-DSPAM-Confidence: 1.0000
X-DSPAM-Improbability: 1 in 98689409 chance of being spam
X-DSPAM-Probability: 0.0023
X-DSPAM-Signature: 51f633a942071779384124
X-DSPAM-Factors: 27, 2013+at, 0.40000, detection+#+#+is, 0.40000, with+#+#+surprisingly, 0.40000, can+#+#+#+certain, 0.40000, Subject*Model+#+Router, 0.40000, that+#+#+for, 0.40000, I'd+like, 0.40000, Subject*Router+Keying, 0.40000, I'm+making, 0.40000, a+better, 0.40000, Subject*Model+for, 0.40000, to+#+the, 0.40000, rare+for, 0.40000, I+#+#+discussion, 0.40000, time+#+than, 0.40000, edit+#+#+of, 0.40000, I'd+#+to, 0.40000, that+#+#+#+about, 0.40000, hartmans+#+#+edu, 0.40000, last+#+#+#+a, 0.40000, this+#+#+#+bxegin, 0.40000, to+#+considerations, 0.40000, and+draft, 0.40000, AM+#+Hartman, 0.40000, draft+#+#+ops, 0.40000, edu+#+#+Yes, 0.40000, I+agree, 0.40000
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, karp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [karp] Last Call: <draft-ietf-karp-ops-model-07.txt> (Operations Model for Router Keying) to Informational RFC
X-BeenThere: karp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for key management for routing and transport protocols <karp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/karp>, <mailto:karp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/karp>
List-Post: <mailto:karp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:karp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/karp>, <mailto:karp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 09:19:45 -0000

On Jul 29, 2013, at 4:54 AM, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> wrote:

> 
> Hi.
> 
> Yes I'm making a last call comment on a document I edit:-)
> 
> During discussion of another document
> )(draft-ietf-karp-crypto-key-table), a routing directorate review
> brought up the concern that we don't talk about time synchronization.
> Without time synchronization, the wrong keys can be selected in certain
> circumstances.
> In some cases, time synchronization is required for replay detection,
> although that is rare for routing protocols.
> 
> Those involved in the discussion of time synchronization and
> draft-ietf-karp-crypto-key-table believed that draft-ietf-karp-ops-model
> is a better place for a discussion of time synchronization than
> draft-ietf-karp-crypto-key-table.

I agree with this (not surprisingly :-)

> So, I'd like to propose the following text be added to security
> considerations:

I'm good with this, one nit:

s/bxegin/begin/

Thanks Sam, 

-danny

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email