Re: [KEYPROV] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6030 (3369)

Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com> Tue, 27 November 2012 23:34 UTC

Return-Path: <turners@ieca.com>
X-Original-To: keyprov@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: keyprov@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33F1E21E803A for <keyprov@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 15:34:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.232
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.232 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wA2JOGb7lfOm for <keyprov@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 15:34:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gateway07.websitewelcome.com (gateway07.websitewelcome.com [67.18.53.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5925C21E8030 for <keyprov@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 15:34:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by gateway07.websitewelcome.com (Postfix, from userid 5007) id 48C7897BB5C5F; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 17:34:04 -0600 (CST)
Received: from gator1743.hostgator.com (gator1743.hostgator.com [184.173.253.227]) by gateway07.websitewelcome.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C76897BB5C29 for <keyprov@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 17:34:04 -0600 (CST)
Received: from [108.45.19.185] (port=57470 helo=thunderfish.local) by gator1743.hostgator.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <turners@ieca.com>) id 1TdUfF-0005jF-79; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 17:34:05 -0600
Message-ID: <50B54DEC.5070302@ieca.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 18:34:04 -0500
From: Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: phoyer@actividentity.com, mpei@verisign.com, smachani@diversinet.com, simon@josefsson.org, keyprov@ietf.org
References: <20121003074727.A303DB1E003@rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <20121003074727.A303DB1E003@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - gator1743.hostgator.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - ieca.com
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: (thunderfish.local) [108.45.19.185]:57470
X-Source-Auth: sean.turner@ieca.com
X-Email-Count: 4
X-Source-Cap: ZG9tbWdyNDg7ZG9tbWdyNDg7Z2F0b3IxNzQzLmhvc3RnYXRvci5jb20=
Cc: phill@hallambaker.com
Subject: Re: [KEYPROV] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6030 (3369)
X-BeenThere: keyprov@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Provisioning of Symmetric Keys \(keyprov\)" <keyprov.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/keyprov>, <mailto:keyprov-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/keyprov>
List-Post: <mailto:keyprov@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:keyprov-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/keyprov>, <mailto:keyprov-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 23:34:07 -0000

I'm a little hesitant to make this change through an errata.  Two reasons:

1) This was the last discuss point to get resolved.  It was two SHOULDs 
before it became MUST oathman/iana.

2) It's changing 2119 language.

If there's really multiple implementations out there do it differently 
could we spin a simple paragraph draft that explains there's no reason 
to restrict it & the old/new text to get this fixed more formally?

Question: Do any of the other implementations fall over if you use 
something without a prefix?

spt


On 10/3/12 3:47 AM, RFC Errata System wrote:
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6030,
> "Portable Symmetric Key Container (PSKC)".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6030&eid=3369
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org>;
>
> Section: 4.3.1
>
> Original Text
> -------------
>     <Manufacturer>:  This element indicates the manufacturer of the
>        device.  Values for the <Manufacturer> element MUST be taken from
>        either [OATHMAN] prefixes (i.e., the left column) or from the IANA
>        Private Enterprise Number Registry [IANAPENREG], using the
>        Organization value.  When the value is taken from [OATHMAN],
>        "oath."  MUST be prepended to the value (e.g., "oath.<prefix value
>        from [OATHMAN]>").  When the value is taken from [IANAPENREG],
>        "iana."  MUST be prepended to the value (e.g., "iana.<Organization
>        value from [IANAPENREG]>").
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>     <Manufacturer>:  This element indicates the manufacturer of the
>        device.  Values for the <Manufacturer> element MAY be taken from
>        either [OATHMAN] prefixes (i.e., the left column) or from the IANA
>        Private Enterprise Number Registry [IANAPENREG], using the
>        Organization value.  When the value is taken from [OATHMAN],
>        "oath."  MUST be prepended to the value (e.g., "oath.<prefix value
>        from [OATHMAN]>").  When the value is taken from [IANAPENREG],
>        "iana."  MUST be prepended to the value (e.g., "iana.<Organization
>        value from [IANAPENREG]>").
>
> Notes
> -----
> The only thing changed is relaxing MUST to MAY.
>
>
>
> The requirement that manufacturer strings begin with "oath." and "iana." is often ignored by implementations/deployments.  Further, none of the examples throughout the document conform to the syntax.  While we could regard these as implementation/deployment and editorial document bugs, I would argue that we could just as well relax the technical requirement because there appears to be no harm in allowing free-form text.  This is what people appear to be using out there already.
>
>
>
> Examples of non-conforming <Manufacturer> fields out there:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hoyer-keyprov-pskc-algorithm-profiles-01
>
> http://download.gooze.eu/otp/seeds/20120919-test001-4282.xml
>
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG)
> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC6030 (draft-ietf-keyprov-pskc-09)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Portable Symmetric Key Container (PSKC)
> Publication Date    : October 2010
> Author(s)           : P. Hoyer, M. Pei, S. Machani
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Provisioning of Symmetric Keys
> Area                : Security
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
>