IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [karp] draft-ietf-karp-bfd-analysis-01

"Bhatia, Manav (Manav)" <manav.bhatia@alcatel-lucent.com> Tue, 11 February 2014 16:18 UTC

Return-Path: <manav.bhatia@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADA061A05E5; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 08:18:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5] 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 Hmi_gtJX0ncF; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 08:18:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ihemail3.lucent.com (ihemail3.lucent.com [135.245.0.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B3641A01A8; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 08:18:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from us70uusmtp3.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-5-2-65.lucent.com [135.5.2.65]) by ihemail3.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id s1BGIctX000581 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 11 Feb 2014 10:18:39 -0600 (CST)
Received: from US70UWXCHHUB01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (us70uwxchhub01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com [135.5.2.48]) by us70uusmtp3.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id s1BGIc00008730 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 11 Feb 2014 11:18:38 -0500
Received: from SG70YWXCHHUB03.zap.alcatel-lucent.com (135.253.2.37) by US70UWXCHHUB01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (135.5.2.48) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.247.3; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 11:18:38 -0500
Received: from SG70YWXCHMBA05.zap.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.5.74]) by SG70YWXCHHUB03.zap.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.253.2.37]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 00:18:35 +0800
From: "Bhatia, Manav (Manav)" <manav.bhatia@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-karp-bfd-analysis-01
Thread-Index: Ac8nPfvHS7qvGuoGRoqR9yH1fZZ/Vv//ff+A//9yG+A=
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 16:18:35 +0000
Message-ID: <20211F91F544D247976D84C5D778A4C32E5879B6@SG70YWXCHMBA05.zap.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <20211F91F544D247976D84C5D778A4C32E587804@SG70YWXCHMBA05.zap.alcatel-lucent.com> <20140211154341.GH21565@pfrc>
In-Reply-To: <20140211154341.GH21565@pfrc>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.253.19.16]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.37
Cc: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, "karp@ietf.org" <karp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [karp] draft-ietf-karp-bfd-analysis-01
X-BeenThere: karp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 16:18:43 -0000

Hi Jeff,

> My impression on my last review (comments should be in the archive) was
> that the existing WG documents covering the generic crypto extensions
> and the
> SHA-2 extensions addressed the gaps.  Is that correct?

Yes that's correct. The current BFD WG security drafts fix all the issues identified in this gap analysis document.

We do provide a recommendation though in Sec 6 about using GMAC instead of HMAC-SHA-x, that's not covered in SHA-2 extensions WG doc.

I guess we're then pretty much good to go from the BFD side of the world for this gap analysis.

Cheers, Manav

> 
> -- Jeff

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email