Re: [manet] Security documents for OLSRv2/NHDP

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