Re: [MEXT] Call for WG adoption of I-D: draft-korhonen-mext-mip6-altsec
jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Wed, 26 January 2011 07:52 UTC
Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 428E728C0D9 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 23:52:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZUFsZk5Rru2W for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 23:52:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA1B228C0D7 for <mext@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 23:52:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by bwz12 with SMTP id 12so1279164bwz.31 for <mext@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 23:55:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to:x-mailer; bh=Isr/sycFKQ8ulwrsgCRokqdsTQ9xHEB7THJf1ovR6vs=; b=Hu+dpNeDrjFhhzd/WFCL+u5pRMEaSjPeC/2E5GLw5GRcwz5YeHFvE0teRyCMtn4iol WMS2cahyiF7+YWWkPHsYs7yTG+nL90AlvBghmX2ly/eEoeetFrHlmtuRlsUkkQScwg0q BL0N2ooiuVAx64XU3Tho57yG8bftpctQD7rD8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=bBuGrpcOp5AhoieHR5mG2tqn2Mod/Q/m5gx1AvX9gkFn8HqPvEkxan6IjGzs1ISvXX IhmZlHAp+qPq0pntBGD5xHS/BOLz/YX1xIgasWe3IWQaY4EpBT/7zi/myp2yyIHVhNQl ZgHWKiv91xJNwvE9WgMUMd8HMtRxE8MKJat58=
Received: by 10.204.112.147 with SMTP id w19mr76484bkp.137.1296028510532; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 23:55:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from a88-112-142-31.elisa-laajakaista.fi (a88-112-142-31.elisa-laajakaista.fi [88.112.142.31]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a17sm7283386bku.23.2011.01.25.23.55.08 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 25 Jan 2011 23:55:09 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1078)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <98A16B2D00B5724F81E80EF1927A029703E3FB@nasanexd01e.na.qualcomm.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 09:55:07 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <06CCEF13-4E11-474D-A25E-C1425D5B520A@gmail.com>
References: <878vyarmku.fsf@natisbad.org> <C963527A.D013%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com> <98A16B2D00B5724F81E80EF1927A029703E3FB@nasanexd01e.na.qualcomm.com>
To: "Laganier, Julien" <julienl@qualcomm.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078)
Cc: "mext@ietf.org" <mext@ietf.org>, "jan@go6.si" <jan@go6.si>, "Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com" <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com>
Subject: Re: [MEXT] Call for WG adoption of I-D: draft-korhonen-mext-mip6-altsec
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 07:52:13 -0000
Few things. The draft already states that "The Padding, Pad Length, Next Header and ICV fields follow the rules of Section 2.4 to 2.8 of [RFC4303] unless otherwise stated in this document." So, we follow the ESP format but feel no shame on changing it if we see a reason to do so. The reason why we chose to do it like this was two fold: 1) some ciphers etc when used would need ~equivalent encapsulation anyway. 2) if we had come up with our very own format the question on the list would have been "why not using RFC4303 encapsulation format". Actually.. the latter already happened offline. - Jouni On Jan 26, 2011, at 12:48 AM, Laganier, Julien wrote: > Hi Raj, > >> Inline: >> >> On 1/24/11 3:58 PM, "ext Arnaud Ebalard" <arno@natisbad.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> To me, what the draft describes is a patchwork based on MIPv6, ESP and >>> TLS. Instead of building on top of those protocols (read modularity >> and >>> interoperability), it reuses (hijacks) various blocks of associated >>> standards in a non-modular way. For instance, one has to reimplement >> ESP >>> in userspace to support the protocol. >> >> We are specifying an encapsulation method in the I-D. To say that one >> has to reimplement ESP in userspace is incorrect. > > The encapsulation format you have in the I-D is: > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | | > : IPv4 or IPv6 header (src-addr=Xa, dst-addr=Ya) : > | | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | | > : UDP header (src-port=Xp,dst-port=Yp) : > | | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ------ > |PType=8| SPI | ^Int. > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Cov- > | Sequence Number | |ered > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ---- > | Payload Data* (variable) | | ^ > : : | | > | | |Conf. > + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Cov- > | | Padding (0-255 bytes) | |ered* > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | > | | Pad Length | Next Header | v v > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ------ > | Integrity Check Value-ICV (variable) | > : : > | | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > Figure 7: UDP Encapsulated Binding Management Message Format > > Which looks like a copy/paste of the ESP specification [RFC4303]: > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ---- > | Security Parameters Index (SPI) | ^Int. > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Cov- > | Sequence Number | |ered > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ---- > | Payload Data* (variable) | | ^ > ~ ~ | | > | | |Conf. > + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Cov- > | | Padding (0-255 bytes) | |ered* > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | > | | Pad Length | Next Header | v v > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ------ > | Integrity Check Value-ICV (variable) | > ~ ~ > | | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > Figure 1. Top-Level Format of an ESP Packet > > > So the question is: Is your intent to provide a UDP encapsulation format for the already specified ESP protocol, or to provide an alternative encapsulation format to ESP? > > --julien > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
- Re: [MEXT] Call for WG adoption of I-D: draft-kor… Hidetoshi Yokota
- Re: [MEXT] Call for WG adoption of I-D: draft-kor… Laganier, Julien
- [MEXT] Call for WG adoption of I-D: draft-korhone… marcelo bagnulo braun
- Re: [MEXT] Call for WG adoption of I-D: draft-kor… Jan Zorz @ go6.si
- Re: [MEXT] Call for WG adoption of I-D: draft-kor… Arnaud Ebalard
- Re: [MEXT] Call for WG adoption of I-D: draft-kor… Basavaraj.Patil
- Re: [MEXT] Call for WG adoption of I-D: draft-kor… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [MEXT] Call for WG adoption of I-D: draft-kor… Jan Zorz @ go6.si
- Re: [MEXT] Call for WG adoption of I-D: draft-kor… Arnaud Ebalard
- Re: [MEXT] Call for WG adoption of I-D: draft-kor… jouni korhonen
- Re: [MEXT] Call for WG adoption of I-D: draft-kor… Domagoj Premec
- [MEXT] IRON - a new approach to mobility manageme… Templin, Fred L
- Re: [MEXT] Call for WG adoption of I-D: draft-kor… Laganier, Julien
- Re: [MEXT] Call for WG adoption of I-D: draft-kor… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: [MEXT] Call for WG adoption of I-D: draft-kor… Ahmad Muhanna
- Re: [MEXT] Call for WG adoption ofI-D: draft-korh… Templin, Fred L
- Re: [MEXT] IRON - a new approach to mobility mana… Templin, Fred L
- Re: [MEXT] Call for WG adoption of I-D: draft-kor… Jouni
- Re: [MEXT] Call for WG adoption of I-D: draft-kor… Laganier, Julien
- Re: [MEXT] Call for WG adoption of I-D: draft-kor… Laganier, Julien
- Re: [MEXT] Call for WG adoption of I-D: draft-kor… Jouni
- Re: [MEXT] Call for WG adoption of I-D: draft-kor… Laganier, Julien
- Re: [MEXT] IRON - a new approach to mobility mana… Templin, Fred L
- Re: [MEXT] Call for WG adoption of I-D: draft-kor… liu dapeng
- Re: [MEXT] IRON - a new approach to mobility mana… Templin, Fred L
- Re: [MEXT] Call for WG adoption of I-D: draft-kor… Julien Laganier
- Re: [MEXT] Call for WG adoption of I-D: draft-kor… jouni korhonen
- Re: [MEXT] Call for WG adoption of I-D: draft-kor… Julien Laganier
- Re: [MEXT] Call for WG adoption of I-D: draft-kor… Jouni
- Re: [MEXT] Call for WG adoption of I-D: draft-kor… Julien Laganier