Re: [manet] Ready for WGLC: Advancing draft-ietf-manet-ibs

"Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <chris.dearlove@baesystems.com> Wed, 30 July 2014 15:31 UTC

Return-Path: <chris.dearlove@baesystems.com>
X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC44B1A0251 for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 08:31:32 -0700 (PDT)
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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable
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 zJIeoH3cV6lX for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 08:31:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ukmta3.baesystems.com (ukmta3.baesystems.com [20.133.40.55]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFA6A1A0048 for <manet@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 08:29:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,764,1400022000"; d="scan'208,217";a="390595710"
Received: from unknown (HELO baemasodc005.greenlnk.net) ([10.108.52.29]) by Baemasodc001ir.sharelnk.net with ESMTP; 30 Jul 2014 16:29:45 +0100
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.01,764,1400022000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="66660597"
Received: from glkxh0004v.greenlnk.net ([10.109.2.35]) by baemasodc005.greenlnk.net with ESMTP; 30 Jul 2014 16:29:56 +0100
Received: from GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net ([169.254.5.13]) by GLKXH0004V.GREENLNK.net ([10.109.2.35]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 16:29:55 +0100
From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <chris.dearlove@baesystems.com>
To: Thomas Clausen <thomas@thomasclausen.org>
Thread-Topic: [manet] Ready for WGLC: Advancing draft-ietf-manet-ibs
Thread-Index: AQHPqmaMr2jXtWmnY0aFPOP7noXFq5u3IjPggAF+aQCAACA88A==
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 15:29:54 +0000
Message-ID: <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D40D1CB44@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net>
References: <BC5A3929-229B-4678-AFC1-8379D95D3618@thomasclausen.org> <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D40D1B881@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net> <DA557FF2-340E-4DC3-B8C7-D0D2F22B8876@thomasclausen.org>
In-Reply-To: <DA557FF2-340E-4DC3-B8C7-D0D2F22B8876@thomasclausen.org>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.109.62.6]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D40D1CB44GLKXM0002VGREEN_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/_e4eIIHDNiENRwiJ7aMIRbRQS8k
Cc: "<manet-chairs@tools.ietf.org>" <manet-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, manet-ads <manet-ads@tools.ietf.org>, manet <manet@ietf.org>, Christopher Dearlove <dearlove@manet-routing.net>
Subject: Re: [manet] Ready for WGLC: Advancing draft-ietf-manet-ibs
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 15:31:33 -0000

I have submitted an -02 based on Thomas's comments, as I proposed addressing them. Any further comments welcome.

Technically, nothing has changed.

--
Christopher Dearlove
Senior Principal Engineer, Information Assurance Group
Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194 |  Fax: +44 1245 242124
chris.dearlove@baesystems.com<mailto:chris.dearlove@baesystems.com> | http://www.baesystems.com

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687

From: Thomas Clausen [mailto:thomas@thomasclausen.org]
Sent: 30 July 2014 15:32
To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
Cc: manet; <manet-chairs@tools.ietf.org>; manet-ads; Christopher Dearlove
Subject: Re: [manet] Ready for WGLC: Advancing draft-ietf-manet-ibs


*** WARNING ***
This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an external partner or the internet.
Consider carefully whether you should click on any links, open any attachments or reply.
For information regarding Red Flags that you can look out for in emails you receive, click here<http://intranet.ent.baesystems.com/howwework/security/spotlights/Documents/Red%20Flags.pdf>.
If you feel the email is suspicious, please follow this process<http://intranet.ent.baesystems.com/howwework/security/spotlights/Documents/Dealing%20With%20Suspicious%20Emails.pdf>.
Chris,


On Jul 29, 2014, at 17:16, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) <chris.dearlove@baesystems.com<mailto:chris.dearlove@baesystems.com>> wrote:


Some additional comments inline. I plan to put out a new version shortly, but technically all will be unchanged.

Comments below, but yes, what I suggest are in the "nits" category, which is why I would have been happy to see the current version WGLCed. If you have a new version that addresses my nits, then the WGLC will be even easier for me, though....

Below (snipping out the parts where we agree and stuff).

From: Thomas Clausen [mailto:thomas@thomasclausen.org]
Sent: 28 July 2014 14:19
To: manet; <manet-chairs@tools.ietf.org<mailto:manet-chairs@tools.ietf.org>>; manet-ads
Cc: Christopher Dearlove
Subject: Ready for WGLC: Advancing draft-ietf-manet-ibs


<SNIP>


I have, therefore, reviewed the document carefully. In my opinion, the author is right -in my opinion this document is ready for WGLC.

<SNIP>


Issues:

            o          In my opinion, "Updates 7182" is inappropriate. What this document does is:
                                    (i)         only things permissible by RFC7182, and
                                    (ii)        makes registration from IANA registries set up by RFC7182
                                                (noting, of course, that RFC7181 doesn't "Updates 5444"
                                                 when making registrations for TC messages from the repositories
                                                 set up by RFC5444 as a case of precedent)
                        Consequently, I believe that the abstract, introduction, and document
                        header, needs updates to reflect that this is not an update.

                        Caveat Lector: I have bounced this around with the author, and I
                                                think that the conclusion is that we need just a friendly
                                                ADs opinion - my understanding is that the author
                                                "wants this out, but wants it done right, also", something
                                                to which I can but adhere.

                                                I believe that we should WGLC the document. If the AD
                                                finds the time to address this issue during WGLC, great -
                                                otherwise, we can reflect this in the "Document Writeup"
                                                that the AD will consider with the publication request - as
                                                this (imo) is procedural/editorial, and certainly not technical.

CMD: On the grounds that the biggest wasted effort is taking out, and then maybe putting back in, I'm going to leave as-is until our AD comments. But I'd have done the same if it were the other way round, I'm happy whichever way this is settled.

I'm entirely aligned with you on this point. If we do not get an ADs input before, we just need to make sure that this will be included in the document write-up and dealt with then.



            o          Introduction, 4th paragraph:

                        Isn't it RFC7183 which does shared-secret-key ICVs? I just did a quick
                        grep through of "shared" in 7182, and found just a few mentions, notably
                        setting a side a value for key-id-length in that case. And "secret" is not
                        mentioned anywhere in 7182

CMD: I made an earlier post on this. I think that some improvements in wording in the Introduction are indicated.


Acknowledged, and that's quite satisfactory.



Nits:
            o          Introduction, 1st paragraph:
                        OLD:
                                    This specification extends the TLV definitions
                                    therein by defining two new cryptographic function code points that
                                    allow the use of an identity-based signature (IBS) as an ICV.

                        NEW:
                                    This specification defines two new cryptographic function
                                    code points from within the registries set up by [RFC7182],
                                    that allow the use of an identity-based signature (IBS) as an ICV.

CMD: I want to keep some of what's lost by that edit, so will propose a third wording.

Looking forward to seeing that.



            o          Introduction, 2nd paragraph, 1st line:
                        I took a double-take when I saw the parenthesis
                        "(protocol participant)" - that seems a little odd, and I am on a crusade
                        against redundant and hard-to-parse terminology ;)

                        I think that what is meant is "router, which is running a routing
                        protocol which is based on RFC5444", so could the document not say
                        that?

                        In any event, I do not see "protocol participant" defined or anywhere else,
                        and so it seems unfortunate to *not* be explicit here.

CMD: Simply removing the parenthesis removes the intended point, which was to say that the
description assumes that the entities involved are routers - which isn't actually the only possibility
using 5444. I'll propose something that borrows from the above to improve it.

OK, looking forward to seeing that, too.

<SNIP>


            o          Introduction, 7th paragraph:
                        Caveating that using this introduces the danger that "if you catch the
                        trusted authority, then you're screwed" is awesome. I see that
                        this is repeated and reworded in the Security Considerations section,
                        and I approve.

                        Now, my question is then, if this should not be stated in the Applicability
                        statement, also? Something to the effect of that this applies to networks
                        where all routers can (at some point) be in contact with the TA (to be
                        keyed), but that this can be off-line - and probably should be off-line
                        since the TA really, really should be protected.

                        It might be argued that the forward-reference to Section 6 captures
                        this - I still think, that a few choice words in the applicability statement
                        would help greatly.

CMD: I prefer to stick with the forward reference, as I think by the time you've said enough, you've duplicated half of Section 6. But adding some words to say particularly regarding the role of the TA/KMS makes sense.

I think that we are aligned, that that's what the last sentence in my comment seeks to capture. So, I look forward to seeing your proposal to this, too.



            o          Introduction, 9th paragraph:
                        Any [academic? otherwise] work that you can cite to quantify the
                        computational load? I asked a crypto-wonk-colleague, who said
                        something to the effect of "the document is perfectly right, on this
                        point, but I do not have a paper just off the top of my head with
                        interesting data to offer". For that reason alone, it'd be interesting
                        if you did ;)

CMD: See previous comments. Trying Google Scholar with ECCSI elliptic curve gets a very small number of hits, none useful here.

I've asked around, but I am not hopeful. Will let you know if I get something citable - most I spoke to said "this aligns with my intuition/experience/*" though.

<SNIP>


                        OLD:
                           o  The ICV is not calculated as cryptographic-function(hash-
                               function(content)) as defined in [RFC7182], but (like the HMAC
                               ICVs defined there) uses the hash function within the
                               cryptographic function.  The option "none" is not permitted for
                               hash-function, and the hash function must have a known fixed
                               length of N octets, as specified in Section 4.2.

                        NEW:
                           o  The ICV is not calculated as cryptographic-function(hash-
                               function(content)) as defined in [RFC7182], but (like the HMAC
                               ICVs defined in [RFC7182]) uses the hash function within the
                               cryptographic function.  The option "none" is not permitted for
                               hash-function, and the hash function must have a known fixed
                               length of N octets, as specified in Section 4.2.

CMD: I could live with either, but will make the change.

I think it makes it clearer, so thank you for that.



            o          While we are at it, it it crystal-clear to everybody that "Section 4.2" in
                        the bullet above is to *this* document, as not RFC7182?

CMD: I'm going to assume it is. I would always write Section X.Y of [Z] (or similar) if making an external reference.

OK, this was a throw-away comment, not important


            o          Section 4.3, 2nd bullet
                        There's a LOT of information embedded in this bullet, and reading it
                        suggests that it, readability-wise, might benefit from embedding a:
                                    <list style="hanging">
                                                <t hangText="Packet TLVs">...</t>
                                                <t hangText="Message TLVs">...</t>
                                                <t hangText="Address Block TLVs">...</t>
                                    </list>

CMD: I'm including to be slightly less radical (and I'm not a fan on hanging text). But I will create another level.

Thank you, that will work nicely.


            o          IANA Considerations:

                        Given recent experiences in this WG and with requesting IANA
                        registrations, may I suggest that this be modified to say, more
                        explicitly:

                                    1)         IANA is requested to reserve ECCSI with description ___
                                                and reference "This Specification"

                                    2)         IANA is requested to reserve ECCSI-ADDR.... (similar)

                                    3)         The "Cryptographic Functions Registry", defined in
                                                [RFC7182], with these registrations made, will look
                                                like Table 1, which replaces Table 11 of [RFC7182]

                                    4)         Obviously, include in Table 1 the registrations from
                                                RFC7182.

                                    5)         That this document does not modify the expert
                                                review guidelines as set forth in RFC7182 for
                                                future allocations.

CMD: I think this comes under the heading of hand-holding IANA more than I would feel ought to be necessary. Except sometimes it has been. But this is a straightforward case, so while I agree that making it more explicit that this is a request for two new code points, I'm not going to repeat the full table from 7182 unless IANA really show they need hand-holding. Our previous cases where we had to repeat a whole table were a bit messier. But giving the exact name for the table as on IANA's website is advisable.


True, but...there's perhaps something to be said for "the table being as complete as possible" for the reader, also? Well, your call, of course.

Once a new version hits the servers, I'll let you know if I see any pending nits.

Cheers,

Thomas

********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************