Re: [Last-Call] Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-multiple-ke-10
Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> Wed, 30 November 2022 02:18 UTC
Return-Path: <sean@sn3rd.com>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6596C14CF13 for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Nov 2022 18:18:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sn3rd.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wuPOvjiOcL8g for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Nov 2022 18:18:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf2c.google.com (mail-qv1-xf2c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f2c]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A332C14F74B for <last-call@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Nov 2022 18:18:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf2c.google.com with SMTP id q10so11057307qvt.10 for <last-call@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Nov 2022 18:18:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sn3rd.com; s=google; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date :in-reply-to:from:subject:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=7hvHvTad2gg+trGs5Q8AGp+mSmgDhkq+8MLY1APviJg=; b=eBK9nnM0VlSqLLYE/yeif3lGborb3lQvbuRuyDe7fM4E8wTUEHDreJc9xA3Kc69QkI XjCCm+tHff4WYDSa8DddiZMHshfV0FOCkXSrrF5NHi5OLrX0tLqpxGPp+U9BSoTfgJa9 TNioz9RYensZmw5qHNxPAW3IUrFiU9NKfLC4s=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date :in-reply-to:from:subject:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=7hvHvTad2gg+trGs5Q8AGp+mSmgDhkq+8MLY1APviJg=; b=WeIXSApVT6h6E5UJ60lTYzWiQNL+xeh1df+xZqu4Z/GI3d/9zy1rvnhid8UugKu94f pXtJvBnfra16HXQnL3qWBwgnIT4VQPpJoMpKydo1cgQ7drONXz8Ws7qqBxg0LXCGiLoP if2VqqCKk10ry7mCBN+d0SUq2CxGqS9bviBKqGDgHleUXYfatB8d8/FCIcQSQmLI3snl bQlP2hFlaQsWw/UZj/XbtAN2aCbqeHlSKFkEv9Pc712iNf03BLNL4noZr6XtjT0Cr8zd 9ss+uHFn8GSAdZ8u24eOBFNRAzCT5YqVwWnS8MCpyef3XTXFjXpZo0BmC8HG1NbJCZQT yLLg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pnnB03eY98EHXHiY+rfb5ef6HzUeL5XhIxFGM/q1GWMwwkeNvUD DTYifKYSLup4YlwWoDmhGZJAs/n3B/CYeQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf7MOlTGU8lE9jfSBtsAjAXWdSOE1nbc0OaTtk3Bw5BQTlFwYPolkuKr5OoUGHybtquMOjxCzA==
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:4101:0:b0:4b1:856b:4277 with SMTP id i1-20020ad44101000000b004b1856b4277mr37704459qvp.129.1669774709201; Tue, 29 Nov 2022 18:18:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([2600:4040:253b:7300:78cb:3ad3:864b:737]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s18-20020a05620a29d200b006fba0a389a4sm80179qkp.88.2022.11.29.18.18.28 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 29 Nov 2022 18:18:28 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\))
From: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>
In-Reply-To: <142b01d903ec$aab1bb40$001531c0$@elvis.ru>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2022 21:18:27 -0500
Cc: secdir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-multiple-ke.all@ietf.org, ipsec@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <676E400B-B8EA-421A-A1DB-45EC588965D0@sn3rd.com>
References: <166965793078.574.10550949979516489683@ietfa.amsl.com> <142b01d903ec$aab1bb40$001531c0$@elvis.ru>
To: Valery Smyslov <svan@elvis.ru>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/fqIT5z4a7SBdfE0lvm35QBAF8jA>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-multiple-ke-10
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2022 02:18:35 -0000
> On Nov 29, 2022, at 07:18, Valery Smyslov <svan@elvis.ru> wrote: > > Hi Sean, > > thank you for your review. Please, see inline. > >> Reviewer: Sean Turner >> Review result: Has Nits >> >> Hi! Thanks for the well written draft. I really liked Appendix B that includes >> the tried but discarded designs. > > Thank you. > >> Issue worth discussing (and it might be a short discussion): >> >> Are there any instructions that the DEs needs to make sure that this registry >> is not populated with PQ-wanna-be Transforms? E.g., I show up my shiny new (and >> supposedly) PQ resistant alg and the DE says .... > > I'm not sure the DEs have enough qualification to judge whether the proposed > algorithm is good or bad with its cryptographic properties. I believe it is the CFRG's task > to bless algorithms and the DEs should only pay attention to is whether > the proposed algorithm meets the protocol restrictions (and those are > listed in Section 4.1 for the DEs). Valery you’re not giving yourself and Tero enough credit ;) But, you did say exactly what I hoped you would say, in that the CFRG is going to evaluate the alg. Note sure if this needs to be documented. >> Nits: >> >> The use of “we” is a style thing that I would change, but if the WG/IESG are >> good with it I can get on board too. > > I'll rely on my co-authors on this :-) > >> s1.2, last para: “require such a requirement” is a bit awkward. How about “have >> such a requirement” or “levy such a requirement”? > > Changed to "have such a requirement". > >> s2, hybrid: I think you might want to include some words by what you mean by >> “hybrid”? Maybe as simple as copy some of the text from the 1st para of s3.1 >> forward, “when multiple key exchanges are performed and the calculated shared >> key depends on all of them”. >> >> s3.1, s/Note that with this semantics,/Note that with these semantics, > > Fixed, thank you. > >> s4.1: >> >> s/must/MUST in the DE instructions? > > Hm, I may be wrong, but in my understanding RFC2119 words have their meaning > only in the context of an RFC/I-D (to which the DE instructions don't belong to)... Yeah that’s what the “?” was about. I think you’re right here that 2119 shouldn’t be applied. >> s/addition,any/addition, any > > Fixed. > >> s5: >> >> s/dwarfed/ with thwart or mitigate > > Changed to mitigate. > >> s/the data need to remain/the data needs to remain > > Fixed. > >> A.1: >> >> s/as follows/as follows. > > OK. > >> s/SKEYSEED(1) …. )./SKEYSEED(1) … ) > > Done. > >> s/{SK_d(1) … SPIr)./{SK_d(1) … SPIr) > > Ditto. > >> Is this missing: >> >> The updated SKEYSEED value is then used to derive the following >> keying materials >> >> between these two lines: >> >> SKEYSEED(2) = prf(SK_d(1), SK(2) | Ni | Nr) >> {SK_d(2) | SK_ai(2) | SK_ar(2) | SK_ei(2) | SK_er(2) | SK_pi(2) | >> SK_pr(2)} = prf+ (SKEYSEED(2), Ni | Nr | SPIi | SPIr) > > Well, I think it must be clear enough from the formulas - > we first calculate new SKEYSEED (SKEYSEED(2)) and then > use it to calculate new SK_* keys (SK_*(2)). > We purposely added indexes in round braces to make it easier > for readers to figure out "generations" of the keys. > Do you think it is not clear enough? My OCD was going off with the perious presentation included those words. If it was purposely dropped that’s okay. >> A.4:s/a security association/an IKE SA > > OK. > > The changes can be reviewed in the PR: > https://github.com/post-quantum/ietf-pq-ikev2/pull/22 > > Regards, > Valery. > >
- [Last-Call] Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-… Sean Turner via Datatracker
- Re: [Last-Call] Secdir telechat review of draft-i… Valery Smyslov
- Re: [Last-Call] Secdir telechat review of draft-i… CJ Tjhai
- Re: [Last-Call] Secdir telechat review of draft-i… Sean Turner
- Re: [Last-Call] Secdir telechat review of draft-i… Valery Smyslov
- Re: [Last-Call] Secdir telechat review of draft-i… Sean Turner
- Re: [Last-Call] Secdir telechat review of draft-i… Sean Turner