IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OSPF] Jari Arkko's Yes on draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-11: (with COMMENT)

Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@gmail.com> Thu, 30 June 2016 00:03 UTC

Return-Path: <acee.lindem@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 307B512B04E; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 17:03:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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, 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 X1YCz4-esazJ; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 17:03:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x229.google.com (mail-qk0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::229]) (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 4A87812DEC7; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 17:03:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x229.google.com with SMTP id o76so3470250qke.0; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 17:03:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:mime-version:subject:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=S4Sb/mXJlhvd4ObapUkTEBboOeyVmXx/NWSlx5iNAHE=; b=oRLcO9Sb0RAzjVR90EymMPIkemEbPZzOMIMqNe+tIFvjCJ/PmXjo95KbzxWoD0+58E 6BefAybaMpCBUBBStyarWFTyk0ZK2DaU+xMfRrz6x13LLELoMl86XeD/tGE8McpBbbv1 ZTAp1CrFxNEsM8QOFxIy+OQSTGKlTNqZnr88+h06zb+7pQ8zq0Z1vcEb20cSSgmwtIdS gEGI0y2uWzsmsL6o3Y+QwwFtEQ4itVsucpVrT9S1p5sYaDX6gzyCWo0pe1weU+/nZpQ5 aUfvsAOYDaER6oVcpgaSpuoFsznwl7sOdZzh/3UWjL1aJGAhrvwbNqNx8MjVAOUCx3QF uuBQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:subject:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=S4Sb/mXJlhvd4ObapUkTEBboOeyVmXx/NWSlx5iNAHE=; b=HRJQZHcAGY4d0A1Cd/a7jefCc1leeR7QVbYjrRSCNHO01HHwwz9yuqyWbKDtqgu1JI Cj4DKDccbpU6Tg3mbDZdjQWkatIyhEyhT8xvx0UdVEoh8mfCuXCVx6sRdSrpX7mYP+ts eW8q0nLSYqHnJMQCTa5h7zAeNoIhx55MDZN61X7oLvJD/EYGlWWsH3zP+sH8BkttWghV 3iY2b7ZOOrCewz9x62TQfAP/nuXHPrixTeycBOl6Mmi1pepf6x0aaea/chWFXE9lEu++ v5DDOl4MT++3oytTilT5qa4Ak4Xi0godMSRB8cp+GxoPdY0QfS2tREgfk9UGgogpYk9v /4NA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIiz29AVbdLdebOg+r1Ok1K636a1DyiN1bNzDCFZG/u97mPuF7m1Ma7/3ZbYPPfyg==
X-Received: by 10.55.189.131 with SMTP id n125mr13729357qkf.194.1467245014343; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 17:03:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtp-acee-8813.cisco.com ([173.38.117.73]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a195sm224420qkc.24.2016.06.29.17.03.33 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 29 Jun 2016 17:03:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@gmail.com>
X-Google-Original-From: Acee Lindem <aceelindem@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
In-Reply-To: <20160629221139.30479.45903.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 20:03:35 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <D317667F-FE8E-4AFA-9C2C-118A50792270@gmail.com>
References: <20160629221139.30479.45903.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/GqWo-NyKEv7DMZjdjyW0X7_Yid4>
Cc: OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>, wenhu.lu@gmail.com, draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, ospf-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Jari Arkko's Yes on draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-11: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ospf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 00:03:43 -0000

Hi Jari, 

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 6:11 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
> 
> Jari Arkko has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3-11: Yes
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I support this document going forward.
> 
> However, in Section 4 it says:
> 
>   Consequently, an OSPFv3 packet
>   transported within an IPv4 packet requires IPsec to provide
>   authentication and confidentiality.  Further work such as [ipsecospf]
>   would be required to support IPsec protection for OSPFv3 over IPv4
>   transport.
> 
> And I had trouble understanding what you meant by this, exactly. IPsec is
> required, but is not currently completely enough defined for OSPF to make
> this possible? If so, I'd suggest using the words:
> 
>   Consequently, an OSPFv3 packet
>   transported within an IPv4 packet requires IPsec to provide
>   authentication and confidentiality.  However,  further work such as
> [ipsecospf]
>   would be required to support IPsec protection for OSPFv3 over IPv4
>   transport.
> 
> But maybe I am misunderstanding what was meant here.

I think I see your point. How about: 

As specified in [RFC5340], OSPFv3 relies on IPsec [RFC4301] for 
authentication and confidentiality. [RFC 4552] specifies how IPsec is used
with OSPFv3 over IPv6 transport. In order to use OSPFv3 with IPv4
transport as specified herein, further work such as [ipsecospf] would
 be required. 

Thanks,
Acee 




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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email