Re: [manet] Security documents for OLSRv2/NHDP

Thanks, Stan.

--  
Christopher Dearlove
christopher.dearlove@gmail.com (iPhone)
chris@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk (home)

On 23 Mar 2013, at 18:57, "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <sratliff@cisco.com> wrote:

> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet