Re: [OSPF] Revised OSPF HMAC SHA Authentication Draft

"Phil Cowburn" <phil.cowburn@gmail.com> Sun, 20 August 2006 01:12 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GEbrn-00024a-V6; Sat, 19 Aug 2006 21:12:43 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GEbrn-00024U-Ap for ospf@ietf.org; Sat, 19 Aug 2006 21:12:43 -0400
Received: from stsc1260-eth-s1-s1p1-vip.va.neustar.com ([156.154.16.129] helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GEbrm-0002mQ-Va for ospf@ietf.org; Sat, 19 Aug 2006 21:12:43 -0400
Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.178]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GEbel-00076X-To for ospf@ietf.org; Sat, 19 Aug 2006 20:59:17 -0400
Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id f25so1736390pyf for <ospf@ietf.org>; Sat, 19 Aug 2006 17:59:15 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=gwtV8S9iv1gkjBxJpwasO7BCpjIRzZ7n7evW2nT0l9DoLirNBTeVV8fa93vw9WzA3CLsQMBI22aYJ87hHN2VmuKrpiGGqejxFd5bWVF0O0aDalDYHqiOKyujaeIdyl9l7TXFadI6J17/tAC7TDioGlvbIoWx5AJLeCMWuB4mYyk=
Received: by 10.65.59.20 with SMTP id m20mr5212397qbk; Sat, 19 Aug 2006 17:59:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.65.159.3 with HTTP; Sat, 19 Aug 2006 17:59:15 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <6e6ce9380608191759j6cee8034w44b0130d1d98d2e1@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 06:29:15 +0530
From: Phil Cowburn <phil.cowburn@gmail.com>
To: Manav Bhatia <manav_bhatia06@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Revised OSPF HMAC SHA Authentication Draft
In-Reply-To: <20060819171729.55449.qmail@web25411.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <20060819171729.55449.qmail@web25411.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--)
X-Scan-Signature: de4f315c9369b71d7dd5909b42224370
Cc: ospf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ospf>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org

I strongly agree with Manav here and an implementation must be able to
demultiplex using the Key ID in the incoming packet. It is afterall
for this very reason that we put the Key ID in the packet.

Erblichs point, as i read it is, that most implementations (if not
all) currently take type 2 to mean MD5. This may break once this draft
becomes a standard, which it would, in some time.

My take on this is that even if the WG agrees to Erblichs solution and
introduces a new type, say 3 for HMAC-SHA-1 authentication, then
somebody else could repeat the same argument and clamour for a new
type when we're introducing newer authentication algorithms in the
future.

Lets move on from this issue.

Phil

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf