Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-hokey-erp-aak

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Fri, 10 February 2012 01:26 UTC

Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:25:02 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: Radia Perlman <radiaperlman@gmail.com>
Message-id: <468389BD4CC24892A8094B8A3D1C6EFE@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
References: <CAFOuuo7Q-inZd_1cKqZAQF4B7mTkQTudu8txnrK2uH5QjMQgcQ@mail.gmail.com> <0BD5C6E31FDC4BDC9813D221CD296680@china.huawei.com> <CAFOuuo7btOZnD-a5-kcSwF4wg+FKsUbRsUJumkRR7E39xHJPYA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: draft-ietf-hokey-erp-aak.all@tools.ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-hokey-erp-aak
Precedence: list

Hi, Radia:
We will impement the clarification texts into the update to fix the issues you pointed out below. 
Thank you again.

Regards!
-Qin
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Radia Perlman" <radiaperlman@gmail.com>
To: "Qin Wu" <bill.wu@huawei.com>
Cc: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>; <secdir@ietf.org>; <draft-ietf-hokey-erp-aak.all@tools.ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 2:51 AM
Subject: Re: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-hokey-erp-aak


Inline

>> In the 4th paragraph before section 5.3, it talks about computing an integrity
>> checksum over the ERP/AAK packet, excluding the authentication tag field.
>> Does this mean that the authentication tag field is zeroed out for the
>> computation,
>> or that the message is truncated to exclude that field?
>
> [Qin]: I think it is the latter case. The integrity checksum over ERP/AAK packet is computed
> from the first bit of code field of packet to the last bit of cryptosuit field of the packet which
> is placed before authenticator tag field.

I don't care which it is.  But the document has to specify.  I assume
when answering me, you were also going to specify it in the document.
:-)

>
>> In the paragraph before section 5.3, it talks about silently discarding the
>> EAP-Initiate/Re-auth packet if it's not supported by the SAP. On a silent
>> discard, how long do you wait for a response before assuming there won't be any,
>> or perhaps that it got lost? (does it run over a reliable Transport? Even so,
>> it might be silently discarded).
>
> [Qin]: That's a good point. In the case of SAP initiating ERP/AAK, this is not a issue since SAP has
> already support ERP/AAK. In the case of Peer initiating ERP/AAK, the peer should maintain
> retransmission timer and maximum retransmission times. Based on retransmission timeout estimation,
> the peer can know there won't be any response. Does this address your comment?

That is somewhat significant text (not just a typo), but I assume
you'll get it right.

Radia

[secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-hokey-erp-aak Radia Perlman
Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-hokey-er… Qin Wu
Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-hokey-er… Radia Perlman
Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-hokey-er… Qin Wu