Re: [manet] Security documents for OLSRv2/NHDP

WG Participants:

The polling period has passed, *without* negative opinions on accepting the documents as WG documents. Therefore, they have been submitted via the data-tracker, and you should get email on their posting. 

Regards,
Stan

On Mar 15, 2013, at 3:04 PM, Stan Ratliff (sratliff) wrote:

> Ulrich, 
> 
> Thanks for this email. OK, Working Group participants: Consider this a 1-week poll for adoption of these docs as WG documents. Polling period ends March 22. And, silence will be deemed to be agreement that the documents *should be* accepted as WG docs. 
> 
> Regards,
> Stan
> 
> On Mar 15, 2013, at 1:51 PM, Ulrich Herberg wrote:
> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> The OLSRv2 authors have had a discussion with Stephen Farrell (Security AD)
>> and Adrian about how to resolve the remaining security related DISCUSS
>> on OLSRv2, and we agreed on a way forward that involves the following
>> steps:
>> 
>> 1) Publication of:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-herberg-manet-nhdp-olsrv2-sec-01
>> 
>> This document mandates (at least) implementation of HMAC/SHA2
>> integrity protection of OLSRv2 messages. Deployments of OLSRv2 should
>> use that mechanism unless they have a more appropriate solution (e.g.,
>> different cipher) for that particular deployment. This document also
>> updates NHDP and mandates to implement the same HMAC/SHA2 protection
>> for HELLO messages.
>> 
>> 2) Publication of:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-herberg-manet-rfc6622-bis-01
>> 
>> This document obsoletes RFC6622bis by fixing an oversight in RFC6622.
>> The differences are minor to RFC6622 and can be seen here:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=rfc6622&url2=draft-herberg-manet-rfc6622-bis
>> Essentially, RFC6622 does not protect the IP source address of the
>> interface over which the control message is sent. Since that address
>> is used to establish neighbors in NHDP (and therefore must be
>> protected), a new type extension 3 of the ICV TLV has been added to
>> the registry.
>> 
>> 3) Publication of an update to OLSRv2, referencing the use of the
>> defined security mechanism, and resolving other smaller issues from
>> Stephen's DISCUSS.
>> 
>> In order to not hold up OLSRv2 further, and upon discussions with Stan
>> and Adrian, we would like to request WG adoption of these two new
>> documents - asking that the chairs will officially poll the WG on this
>> matter shortly. The documents are brief, and addresses issues
>> requested by the ADs, so we hope that processing them should also be a
>> brief affair.
>> 
>> Best regards
>> Ulrich
>> _______________________________________________
>> manet mailing list
>> manet@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
> 
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet