IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [multipathtcp] q about draft-paasch-mptcp-application-authentication-00

Christoph Paasch <cpaasch@apple.com> Wed, 08 June 2016 06:22 UTC

Return-Path: <cpaasch@apple.com>
X-Original-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35FB612D197 for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 23:22:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.518
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.518 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=apple.com
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 8rQ_akTpekT2 for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 23:22:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-in7.apple.com (mail-out7.apple.com [17.151.62.29]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E850112D0C8 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 23:22:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=apple.com; s=mailout2048s; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt; i=@apple.com; t=1465366951; x=2329280551; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-id:To:Cc:MIME-version:Content-type: Content-transfer-encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-reply-to:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=8aCzkQ6zYRvZmhm5WY+0tCAzki8d8gUltD443c4SUP0=; b=AYHTcHvKONPmW6LxxcG/uhhsU4YrulZvE0rWcETMvM1QNE1TgLRHl7yBi+2YdtCd cqZnvoizSN/nFXXdI1/5KNE7uS9X9fycv7pxes8+6nw6gz6iLqYs23daHt9Gyq/x UtZpR2Edgs46t1T6iLrXJ6p5spM5AP9z5xMOahHx7Wm6JgmVHTEfnG7k3VcroqrG Jv/CDxl8w9myWCltxcFDxZSiQVer9Lz11x0af1nGtpo1ukZW4jZHL3tasaPnMWB0 gneeEmMPtMWXrszrym0J9umiJj4ymf5lEaMCrevvyLkraf/wG5YqT2PLvyPj6ep0 dcAO742CD4ID5efpQDZ1Xg==;
Received: from relay5.apple.com (relay5.apple.com [17.128.113.88]) by mail-in7.apple.com (Apple Secure Mail Relay) with SMTP id 43.A3.25552.7A9B7575; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 23:22:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 11973e16-f79bc6d0000063d0-ec-5757b9a7ebf3
Received: from nwk-mmpp-sz06.apple.com (nwk-mmpp-sz06.apple.com [17.128.115.234]) (using TLS with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by relay5.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id D2.FA.09064.7A9B7575; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 23:22:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [17.149.220.157] (unknown [17.149.220.157]) by nwk-mmpp-sz06.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7.0.5.35.0 64bit (built Mar 31 2015)) with ESMTPSA id <0O8F00I09WDIJT70@nwk-mmpp-sz06.apple.com> for multipathtcp@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Jun 2016 23:22:31 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: cpaasch@apple.com
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Christoph Paasch <cpaasch@apple.com>
In-reply-to: <CAO249yfkoF8oRzEbQHjxbJ3kuUX2m_GdCyvzzCWy+yxPqG5=3w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2016 23:22:30 -0700
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Message-id: <051C927C-9571-429A-89E6-278AAEA2A0B8@apple.com>
References: <CAO249yfkoF8oRzEbQHjxbJ3kuUX2m_GdCyvzzCWy+yxPqG5=3w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrFLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUi2FAYobt8Z3i4wb8VOhafV19nc2D0WLLk J1MAYxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXxqPmooJfPBUP7lxha2Bs5+pi5OSQEDCRaJ3UxAphi0lcuLee DcQWEtjLKPHzn30XIwdYzb8+uy5GLqDwciaJnftgaoCcaRfB5ggLSEp037nDDGIzC2hJrN95 nAnE5hXQk5h8tIENoiZM4tijJewgNhtQzdvb7WB7OQWCJbpnPATrZRFQlfixcDEryF5mAWOJ KTONIEZqSzx5d4EVYqSNxIrjm1khTgiQ6OzrA1slArTqw/ePTBCvyEo8ObmIBeRmCYE5bBK7 37xnnMAoMgvJebOQnDcLyY4FjMyrGIVyEzNzdDPzzPUSCwpyUvWS83M3MYICe7qd2A7Gh6us DjEKcDAq8fCe0AsPF2JNLCuuzD3EKM3BoiTOm9QMFBJITyxJzU5NLUgtii8qzUktPsTIxMEp 1cA42XCWSvoK7eyFp9OC8ldvrv8+a3bMs/BtVxsK11xaJLlBl8nJrjzP6U7yun5LrdXqh5JF 7C/68lic8XzvOIt9prIww5E3eru/289SC2dZIb7zN3PU2Y33+ZyK3FyqVnY5T7CaqhW75NHx tzOqJi2uObV0imFYk8x6eX7XkHtul+KSd2T2fZ2qxFKckWioxVxUnAgAVTA3ik0CAAA=
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrGLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUi2FD8Snf5zvBwg/U3VSw+r77O5sDosWTJ T6YAxigum5TUnMyy1CJ9uwSujEfNRQW/eCoe3LnC1sDYztXFyMEhIWAi8a/ProuRE8gUk7hw bz1bFyMXh5DAciaJnftAHE4IZ9pFLhBbWEBSovvOHWYQm1lAS2L9zuNMIDavgJ7E5KMNbBA1 YRLHHi1hB7HZgGre3m5nBbE5BYIlumc8BOtlEVCV+LFwMSvIDcwCxhJTZhpBjNSWePLuAivE SBuJFcc3s0KcECDR2dcHtkoEaNWH7x+ZIG6WlXhychHLBEbBWUgumoXkollIxi5gZF7FKFCU mpNYaaqXWFCQk6qXnJ+7iREcioUROxj/L7M6xCjAwajEw3tCLzxciDWxrLgy9xCjBAezkgjv 3i1AId6UxMqq1KL8+KLSnNTiQ4zJQL9MZJYSTc4HxkleSbyhiYmBibGxmbGxuYk5acJK4rxx J8PChQTSE0tSs1NTC1KLYLYwcXBKNTDmRblHnt1yon5FC4OF9dEZ6zzfXHzrssJIwN/Dvv8o e4j/rIR/cRuzy5V6jvtejt11wztUzqnq3N1Pbc8epBmYyLhOL1ly95xmxO1tS9qONhtos2jy vfrU8K+r71OcTuCLRXaWd+Y9r2r17d/Ymno/aE/rp51/M2u6zZtLDYzdJefM8PJXClJiKc5I NNRiLipOBADRbIkSiQIAAA==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/MvB57VITTuk2O4rxwslH9_aJLxE>
Cc: MultiPath TCP - IETF WG <multipathtcp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] q about draft-paasch-mptcp-application-authentication-00
X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-path extensions for TCP <multipathtcp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/multipathtcp>, <mailto:multipathtcp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/multipathtcp/>
List-Post: <mailto:multipathtcp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:multipathtcp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp>, <mailto:multipathtcp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 06:22:33 -0000

Hello Yoshifumi,

> On Jun 7, 2016, at 8:04 AM, Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp> wrote:
> 1: I am wondering if this is an asymmetric scheme. I mean, if it can be possible to use a token with G flag on one side, while a key without G flag is used on the other side. It seems to me that the draft is a bit unclear on this point, but I am guessing this might be typical for load-balancer use case. I don't see incentive for client to use G flag in this case.

it was intended to be an asymmetric scheme. I agree that the use of the G-bit is not very clear in the draft.

The way I see it is that the client signals to the server its capabilities. It may thus set the G and the H bit at the same time. The server then chooses which mode it uses and thus should only reply in the SYN/ACK with one of the bits set.

We will clarify this in the draft.

> 2: How we should react if G and H flags are set in a packet? 

See above.

> 3: key-A and key-B in figure 2 might be token-A and token-B? (presume G flag is used)

When the G-flag was set in the MP_CAPABLE-handshake, key-A and key-B in Figure 2 are the keys provided by the application.

If the H-flag however is set in the handshake, key-A and key-B are the ones used in the MP_CAPABLE handshake. We do fallback to the "regular" MPTCP handshake in case the H-flag is set.

Does this answers your question?


Cheers,
Christoph


> 
> Thanks,
> --
> Yoshi
> 
> _______________________________________________
> multipathtcp mailing list
> multipathtcp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email