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

Radia Perlman <radiaperlman@gmail.com> Thu, 09 February 2012 18:51 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0BD5C6E31FDC4BDC9813D221CD296680@china.huawei.com>
References: <CAFOuuo7Q-inZd_1cKqZAQF4B7mTkQTudu8txnrK2uH5QjMQgcQ@mail.gmail.com> <0BD5C6E31FDC4BDC9813D221CD296680@china.huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:51:29 -0800
Message-ID: <CAFOuuo7btOZnD-a5-kcSwF4wg+FKsUbRsUJumkRR7E39xHJPYA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Radia Perlman <radiaperlman@gmail.com>
To: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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

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