IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Alan Ford <alan.ford@gmail.com> Wed, 08 June 2016 08:08 UTC

Return-Path: <alan.ford@gmail.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 523CA12D1EA for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 01:08:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 Hv4E-RiCGSms for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 01:08:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x236.google.com (mail-yw0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E1E312D1E3 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 01:08:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x236.google.com with SMTP id x189so498830ywe.3 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Wed, 08 Jun 2016 01:08:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=JyBamfxVuaUzvwbzOeCOyKnWzbshWrLwMYAOjBKJUj4=; b=0+WYPHthKO5VScQVciXSIs1lFW8oQdL1CpSlSH783OYZF/DBIoSu3nOkNzEuQ6pp5/ IovLhNalu5GqYzpONEffhXTaJlTPsARbL5MKk7LSLuCvMwF/bDVtcj/7O+lM+tQHO48n dyFmEESaLaakkBBxPhHDxwLlFqAH5HCRHNWr9HRedzv3neNdJM03/hK6RBwaMyk4ZQnz d11tKlARnf8AjwlBwAtoac88DzY12sTqhH5cqvNFbLnbnGOl+OzemClP8HKqdSh29y1f lPiKb1EzTyEXRgXTPoa/Bpi+EHG60SQtoH+ts1ez41Aa+sHYhCHFecTh5jwQnhsN45Pz TqnQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=JyBamfxVuaUzvwbzOeCOyKnWzbshWrLwMYAOjBKJUj4=; b=jrRD+pzAuL1gosQzNg7xXjnH/ZZhWd3pz1uP35waIZcbGeGgmHdGmnWzhPouRxG9Yu dwMjir8ITmZfSGxoeuDDbfgEy4Py6YKD3meTyebRFSFxSDS7/7jGYp6ut2OnZUisUgfd fzdaYeckwdWSegQoXhWjwQ12/67XecGJyW2rgDYMcykvjHNVVwv4zuAETeozzPlgguCZ XIkTWdW2IBWBVxMqdnNaJ9mDOG4tSdv7AsIh3u0enBWibh8EwF6Z6ayojdQ2pbAB1pW7 xCcafceH/Wfz1EFpq40guRzgUZa/xk3R7/e7Fwvu5rPsmE80Ctfaj/z0gobbPdv59Ges R+bg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIgHmCcWMatXV2MNZUSLRlKzEyjL+1y4NPLwmZmPbUpXoFbeUYM9kBvODaCXY+ldypdZEhPmdxWz9Pjlw==
X-Received: by 10.129.48.205 with SMTP id w196mr1245493yww.266.1465373285741; Wed, 08 Jun 2016 01:08:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.129.152.11 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 01:08:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <051C927C-9571-429A-89E6-278AAEA2A0B8@apple.com>
References: <CAO249yfkoF8oRzEbQHjxbJ3kuUX2m_GdCyvzzCWy+yxPqG5=3w@mail.gmail.com> <051C927C-9571-429A-89E6-278AAEA2A0B8@apple.com>
From: Alan Ford <alan.ford@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 09:08:05 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOs_kTYjrxm_C_uP3g0qCXYeAGhsoSPQpU0joVybUXreSbwuMw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christoph Paasch <cpaasch@apple.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113f4c0a28fa3e0534bfce07"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/TOwa9w0EGSeRDW-01nsmixzjcbY>
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 08:08:08 -0000

The rfc6824bis draft already lays the groundwork for negotiating crypto
capabilities:

   For crypto negotiation, the responder has the choice.  The initiator
   creates a proposal setting a bit for each algorithm it supports to 1
   (in this version of the specification, there is only one proposal, so
   bit "H" will be always set to 1).  The responder responds with only 1
   bit set -- this is the chosen algorithm.


We are just making use of this!

Regards,
Alan

On 8 June 2016 at 07:22, Christoph Paasch <cpaasch@apple.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> multipathtcp mailing list
> multipathtcp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email