Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-msec-gdoi-update
Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> Thu, 04 August 2011 13:25 UTC
Return-Path: <hartmans@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AAC121F8A1A; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 06:25:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.985
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.985 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.720, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id po6YCBo4zDpF; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 06:25:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.suchdamage.org (permutation-city.suchdamage.org [69.25.196.28]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1AFA21F89C2; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 06:25:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org [69.25.196.178]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "laptop", Issuer "laptop" (not verified)) by mail.suchdamage.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19301201C7; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 09:28:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 461134234; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 09:25:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
To: Brian Weis <bew@cisco.com>
References: <tsl8vrd2hz4.fsf@mit.edu> <8B61042D-0BB4-42EA-970B-DDA36A659DA9@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 09:25:22 -0400
In-Reply-To: <8B61042D-0BB4-42EA-970B-DDA36A659DA9@cisco.com> (Brian Weis's message of "Wed, 3 Aug 2011 17:33:30 -0700")
Message-ID: <tsld3glux4t.fsf@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110009 (No Gnus v0.9) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: draft-ietf-msec-gdoi-update@tools.ietf.org, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>, ietf@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-msec-gdoi-update
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 13:25:19 -0000
>>>>> "Brian" == Brian Weis <bew@cisco.com> writes: Brian> Hi Sam, Thanks for your review. Brian> Your first comment is pointing out a typo (groupkey-pull Brian> should be groupkey-push), which I've fixed. Brian> The anti-replay description in Section 3.3 should not say Brian> that the push message sequence number will be reset to Brian> 1. Text earlier in this section says that the SEQ payload Brian> carries the next expected sequence number, and so when the Brian> KEK is installed that is the number that should be Brian> installed. I've adjusted the text to say this: "If this group Brian> has a KEK, the KEK policy and keys are marked as ready for Brian> use and the GM knows to expect a sequence number not less Brian> than the one distributed in the SEQ payload." Let me know if Brian> that change sufficiently clears up the confusion. Yes, all looks good. The typo plus the text in 3e.3 caused me to wonder whether something more complex than I had anticipated was going on with replay. The new text is quite clear.