Re: [OSPF] New Version Notification for draft-acee-ospf-rfc6506bis-01.txt

[Anton Smirnov <[e-mail]>]

    Hi Acee,
    I also support bis revision - couple of points not covered in the 
original document may negatively impact interoperability between 
different implementations.

    Regarding sequence numbers - if I understand wording in 'bis' 
revision correctly, sender is using single incrementing sequence number 
counter independent of packet type and receiver is using one sequence 
number per packet type, correct? I am asking because RFC 4222 recommends 
to sort packets into two classes (i.e. not as many classes as there are 
packet types), so mentioning it may be somewhat confusing.

Anton


On 06/11/2013 01:35 PM, Acee Lindem wrote:
> Thank Michael - Does anyone else support this work? I think it will help
> ensure compatibility between implementations. I would have expected at
> least those who submitted the corrected errata to support the draft.
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
> On 6/6/13 1:12 PM, "Michael Barnes" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> I agree these are good changes. Acee, please move forward with this draft.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Michael
>>
>> On 05/09/2013 11:03 AM, Acee Lindem wrote:
>>> There have been a couple errata filed on RFC 6505 (authors copied). As
>>> a service to the
>>> OSPF community and in an effort to ensure interoperable OSPFv3
>>> authentication
>>> trailer implementations, I have produced a BIS draft. The changes are
>>> listed in
>>> section 1.2:
>>>
>>> 1.2.  Summary of Changes from RFC 6506
>>>
>>>      This document includes the following changes from RFC 6506
>>> [RFC6506]:
>>>
>>>      1.  Sections 2.2 and 4.2 explicitly state the Link-Local Signalling
>>>          (LLS) block checksum calculation is omitted when an OSPFv3
>>>          authentication is used.  The LLS block is included in the
>>>          authentication digest calculation and computation of a checksum
>>>          is unneccessary.  Clarification of this issue was raised in an
>>>          errata.
>>>
>>>      2.  Section 4.5 includes a correction to the key preparation to use
>>>          the protocol specific key (Ks) rather than the key (K) as the
>>>          initial key (Ko).  This problem was also raised in an errata.
>>>
>>>      3.  Section 4.5 also includes a discussion of the choice of key
>>>          length to be the hash length (L) rather than the block size (B).
>>>          The discussion of this choice was included to clarify an issue
>>>          raised in a rejected errata.
>>>
>>>      4.  Section 4.1 indicates that sequence number checking is dependent
>>>          on OSPFv3 packet type in order to account for packet
>>>          prioritization as specified in [RFC4222].  This was an omission
>>>          from RFC 6506.
>>>
>>>
>>> I would like to quickly move this to an OSPF WG document and begin the
>>> review process. I'm now soliciting feedback on OSPF WG adoption.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Acee
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 9, 2013, at 1:43 PM, <[e-mail]>
>>>    wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> A new version of I-D, draft-acee-ospf-rfc6506bis-01.txt
>>>> has been successfully submitted by Manav Bhatia and posted to the
>>>> IETF repository.
>>>>
>>>> Filename:	 draft-acee-ospf-rfc6506bis
>>>> Revision:	 01
>>>> Title:		 Supporting Authentication Trailer for OSPFv3
>>>> Creation date:	 2013-05-09
>>>> Group:		 Individual Submission
>>>> Number of pages: 25
>>>> URL:
>>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-acee-ospf-rfc6506bis-01.txt
>>>> Status:
>>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-acee-ospf-rfc6506bis
>>>> Htmlized:
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-acee-ospf-rfc6506bis-01
>>>> Diff:
>>>> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-acee-ospf-rfc6506bis-01
>>>>
>>>> Abstract:
>>>>     Currently, OSPF for IPv6 (OSPFv3) uses IPsec as the only mechanism
>>>>     for authenticating protocol packets.  This behavior is different
>>>> from
>>>>     authentication mechanisms present in other routing protocols
>>>> (OSPFv2,
>>>>     Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS), RIP, and Routing
>>>>     Information Protocol Next Generation (RIPng)).  In some
>>>> environments,
>>>>     it has been found that IPsec is difficult to configure and maintain
>>>>     and thus cannot be used.  This document defines an alternative
>>>>     mechanism to authenticate OSPFv3 protocol packets so that OSPFv3
>>>> does
>>>>     not only depend upon IPsec for authentication.  This document
>>>>     obsoletes RFC 6506.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The IETF Secretariat
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OSPF mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OSPF mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>