Re: [MEXT] Call for WG adoption of I-D: draft-korhonen-mext-mip6-altsec
"Laganier, Julien" <julienl@qualcomm.com> Wed, 26 January 2011 23:16 UTC
Return-Path: <julienl@qualcomm.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 B11463A68AF for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:16:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.373
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.373 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.226, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 sNgi2X5TzhK9 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:16:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com (wolverine01.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.254]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B5E63A6A04 for <mext@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:16:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=julienl@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1296083976; x=1327619976; h=from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date: message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language: content-language:x-ms-has-attach:x-ms-tnef-correlator: x-originating-ip:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; z=From:=20"Laganier,=20Julien"=20<julienl@qualcomm.com> |To:=20jouni=20korhonen=20<jouni.nospam@gmail.com>|CC:=20 "mext@ietf.org"=20<mext@ietf.org>,=20"jan@go6.si"=20<jan@ go6.si>,=0D=0A=09"Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com"=20<Basavaraj .Patil@nokia.com>|Subject:=20RE:=20[MEXT]=20Call=20for=20 WG=20adoption=20of=20I-D:=0D=0A=09draft-korhonen-mext-mip 6-altsec|Thread-Topic:=20[MEXT]=20Call=20for=20WG=20adopt ion=20of=20I-D:=0D=0A=09draft-korhonen-mext-mip6-altsec |Thread-Index:=20AQHLvS5ioJLiiK5cIUOVOwObIMivn5Pj4vDw |Date:=20Wed,=2026=20Jan=202011=2023:19:35=20+0000 |Message-ID:=20<98A16B2D00B5724F81E80EF1927A029703EAD4@na sanexd01e.na.qualcomm.com>|References:=20<878vyarmku.fsf@ natisbad.org>=0D=0A=09<C963527A.D013%basavaraj.patil@noki a.com>=0D=0A=09<98A16B2D00B5724F81E80EF1927A029703E3FB@na sanexd01e.na.qualcomm.com>=0D=0A=20<06CCEF13-4E11-474D-A2 5E-C1425D5B520A@gmail.com>|In-Reply-To:=20<06CCEF13-4E11- 474D-A25E-C1425D5B520A@gmail.com>|Accept-Language:=20en-U S|Content-Language:=20en-US|X-MS-Has-Attach: |X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:|x-originating-ip:=20[172.30.39.5] |Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20charset=3D"us-ascii" |Content-Transfer-Encoding:=20quoted-printable |MIME-Version:=201.0; bh=1zXzTKTE4D8iZefeBUxKnImFEV9S7KzqTn/kR+9rcPo=; b=pzS3CuxsTpZBpO9Qhd98PQSM9JIahHQKKHYxxT6hiNtIMGsGJUYb2O2N igkIkkk5WGpZMweaj8hfkVVVlNw80fWj9OP38MfCjMzuc9mTl25xdaBUz moTqOkI39X2UeeOihCGR1T3oLxI5oAAtiXrRfnVaAcMG+LVV2Yier3HrT 8=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6238"; a="72109431"
Received: from ironmsg02-r.qualcomm.com ([172.30.46.16]) by wolverine01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 26 Jan 2011 15:19:35 -0800
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,380,1291622400"; d="scan'208";a="112799694"
Received: from nasanexhc08.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.39.7]) by ironmsg02-R.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 26 Jan 2011 15:19:35 -0800
Received: from NASANEXD01E.na.qualcomm.com ([fe80::6555:8c37:4ee3:efc4]) by nasanexhc08.na.qualcomm.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0218.012; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:19:35 -0800
From: "Laganier, Julien" <julienl@qualcomm.com>
To: jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [MEXT] Call for WG adoption of I-D: draft-korhonen-mext-mip6-altsec
Thread-Index: AQHLvS5ioJLiiK5cIUOVOwObIMivn5Pj4vDw
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 23:19:35 +0000
Message-ID: <98A16B2D00B5724F81E80EF1927A029703EAD4@nasanexd01e.na.qualcomm.com>
References: <878vyarmku.fsf@natisbad.org> <C963527A.D013%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com> <98A16B2D00B5724F81E80EF1927A029703E3FB@nasanexd01e.na.qualcomm.com> <06CCEF13-4E11-474D-A25E-C1425D5B520A@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <06CCEF13-4E11-474D-A25E-C1425D5B520A@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.30.39.5]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com" <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com>, "jan@go6.si" <jan@go6.si>, "mext@ietf.org" <mext@ietf.org>
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 23:16:35 -0000
Hi Jouni, I understand you "follow the ESP format but feel no shame on changing it if we see a reason to do so", but I am (shamelessly ;) wondering about the actual reason to do so, as per one of the famous Architectural Principles of the Internet documented in RFC 1958: 3.2 If there are several ways of doing the same thing, choose one. If a previous design, in the Internet context or elsewhere, has successfully solved the same problem, choose the same solution unless there is a good technical reason not to. Duplication of the same protocol functionality should be avoided as far as possible, without of course using this argument to reject improvements. Would you mind enlightening us? --julien jouni korhonen wrote: > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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