IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-sec-09.txt

Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name> Fri, 09 March 2012 18:05 UTC

Return-Path: <ulrich@herberg.name>
X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEBBD21E8084 for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 10:05:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QK-3PyD5suU1 for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 10:05:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pz0-f44.google.com (mail-pz0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEE0A21E806C for <manet@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 10:04:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by dakl33 with SMTP id l33so1860504dak.31 for <manet@ietf.org>; Fri, 09 Mar 2012 10:04:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=fVi4AYSmjNUdKXVTeVW1PABoj5icJ3DtnDIZ1wFJ/K0=; b=0V4qqwBT2I9Je6Y9w9A+9cyjm1Cmfux75rRhdFTNnS8eCpI1QIP3ZUvb9cz7MGCxkY lmbLTRT91mtrsPs96o9I7IaG0I3axNOKGgPT9KsI/zKHk30DeVQO+O6jasfCd6Owj4YU Fmk0PM6it7ZGADmzsmGOayP9XZ+zJMr6MyNMI=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=fVi4AYSmjNUdKXVTeVW1PABoj5icJ3DtnDIZ1wFJ/K0=; b=Kg4EEC+MvEHr6vVbPAdqYB686LSKGtnfxyRT4KEQ/ALrZBJwfV9BNcvNVlfdit7IRA nR0NQHQKNlR73uekn+t3IaNOTVWFSFBRvEcz1jrfwrvYVYBOMjOhYNwuoMyy7tWbWcZu S32ytOp49lojdMlfh7DJOY8nJVkOIgGPcKfG4/JsaJoBYYxFD1me88MkWKQwgPnbqVHy d1cW3uEki828sejciLnz+TyTRgqlzYf9aYS6cGoi3tm7+os7M/yBeVs1JNkk0IbZO5eP WHpmDcGaow3xLoTHS4oq6BiyCuHC2n0KP2yiwvBdFj0folBQW8ULTOq6E38TCnZgxDWB e0UQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.225.104 with SMTP id rj8mr5712749pbc.135.1331316299576; Fri, 09 Mar 2012 10:04:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.142.254.2 with HTTP; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 10:04:59 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20120306200445.7637.91538.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20120306200445.7637.91538.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 10:04:59 -0800
Message-ID: <CAK=bVC_QDExULGCjKPA+3fC61TwO8ctcdmQpSk=UM-RjS80U2g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name>
To: manet@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8ff24c7b1eb51104bad33bee"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmeS5CmuOgfSK3MJUDDR3sXeDmNGt+Oxrn/6DDwtScXeHT6wcP/UXfn2r6I0E5IHA+BITdT
Subject: Re: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-sec-09.txt
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 18:05:01 -0000

Hi,

following up on the IESG evaluation, we have submitted a new revision of
packetbb-sec. This new revision has satisfied the ADs who previously had a
"DISCUSS" in the ballot. We were asked to inform the WG of the changes in
this last revision:

- the term "digital signature" was changed to "integrity check value
(ICV)", as we want to include HMAC
- we have reinstated several entries in the registries for hash functions
and cryptographic functions (e.g. SHA256 / RSA).
- instead of using a single octet for the key index, a length-value
structure for a key identifier is used, which allows more flexibility.

- There are still come editorial nits to fix, but we believe they are so
minor, that they can be solved with an RFC Editor note.

Best regards
Ulrich

On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 12:04 PM, <internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote:

>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories. This draft is a work item of the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks
> Working Group of the IETF.
>
>        Title           : Integrity Check Value and Timestamp TLV
> Definitions for MANETs
>        Author(s)       : Ulrich Herberg
>                          Thomas Heide Clausen
>        Filename        : draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-sec-09.txt
>        Pages           : 20
>        Date            : 2012-03-06
>
>   This document describes general and flexible TLVs for representing
>   cryptographic integrity check values (ICV) (i.e. digital signatures
>   or MACs) as well as timestamps, using the generalized MANET packet/
>   message format defined in RFC 5444.  It defines two Packet TLVs, two
>   Message TLVs, and two Address Block TLVs, for affixing ICVs and
>   timestamps to a packet, message and address, respectively.
>
>
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-sec-09.txt
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
> This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-sec-09.txt
>
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email