Re: [secdir] [IPsec] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv-07: (with COMMENT)
Daniel Migault <daniel.migault@ericsson.com> Thu, 17 October 2019 14:05 UTC
Return-Path: <mglt.ietf@gmail.com>
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 637CC12000F; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 07:05:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.476
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.476 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.172, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 YdKUbGxpqP2N; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 07:05:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-f51.google.com (mail-vs1-f51.google.com [209.85.217.51]) (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 7E39912085D; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 07:05:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-f51.google.com with SMTP id s7so1687577vsl.2; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 07:05:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=g11VaHSLtwameCqeh/OkrPNBrWXROSLu5JJQ1/Efp1M=; b=Vupo/LpBE6ptRxmpLDo0dENdUG8QXL4r+70h5kn9qeDJ4bWUd95m2ORjJhNOvGHUFB 0C56FKPUM3TxfxK1yRqH2AF7GFdZVGjVibSGjal9Zd7dDwzmll3CPOsvv3iwRVezQsrP 3s1xY9XdGgcD+nygK1WUKKwZEcK/WkJSVWFJ3amnWh0yN3wc45jI4orLkTrbn7eXH5/v yJlI41rsA3NKnkMaKWGlPz+BqRHAqdRReDiw4Ov1tkm3MpRqcSMYQ105um/J1uNS24K+ pQ/OfwIn9z56HwfCnzIZMV3k3/WiqV16OWVqobrtA5VNuJMxtnfreUTdnZKXSw3+mLjV Mfpg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVB/9WFG0DYgFmRPYq+YWttI07u52XRVFDVAwMUVVz3qbPnSqRO qoyT6gGVm/wF25CiuU/bftOpBP3w3ZkD7LZrMzs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxe0Mw0u6762rbw9RO2gsWKGw6isuMx/qdh2dFOMLIYfTYNQc30lk370W9RntHYzCt41vC7Ijw/MvhABhNbuoI=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:21ce:: with SMTP id r14mr2110030vsg.69.1571321148293; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 07:05:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <157119428147.28057.3364707659942003352.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CADZyTk=wf6na2m7+mo-QrLud_8_F6A-8r2CrJ+XVqr4ikS5jSQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADZyTk=wf6na2m7+mo-QrLud_8_F6A-8r2CrJ+XVqr4ikS5jSQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Daniel Migault <daniel.migault@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 10:05:37 -0400
Message-ID: <CADZyTkmRH71-GPm10DcNU7EFh==0dVSx9VvNe28CmA+KmoEOJQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, secdir@ietf.org
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, IPsecME WG <ipsec@ietf.org>, ipsecme-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv@ietf.org, Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000df45d005951bb602"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/gJfnRaJnNRPAvvrlVvtXU66EMvg>
Subject: Re: [secdir] [IPsec] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv-07: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 17 Oct 2019 14:05:52 -0000
Hi, Just to make everyone aware, we have issued a new version that we hope addresses all concerns. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv-08 Yours, Daniel On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:07 PM Daniel Migault <daniel.migault@ericsson.com> wrote: > Hi Adam, > > Thanks for the feed back. All your comments have been fixed on the current > local version available at: > > https://github.com/mglt/draft-mglt-ipsecme-implicit-iv/blob/master/draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv.txt > > We expect to publish the version tomorrow. > > Yours, > Daniel > > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 10:51 PM Adam Roach via Datatracker < > noreply@ietf.org> wrote: > >> Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv-07: 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-ipsecme-implicit-iv/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Thanks for the work on this mechanism. I have no substantive comments >> beyond those that have already been shared, although I do have some >> minor editorial comments. >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> §2: >> >> > In some context, such as IoT, it may be preferable to avoid carrying >> >> Nit: "...some contexts..." >> >> Fixed > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> §5: >> >> > An initiator supporting this feature SHOULD propose implicit IV >> > algorithms in the Transform Type 1 (Encryption Algorithm) >> > Substructure of the Proposal Substructure inside the SA Payload. >> >> Please expand "SA" on first use. >> >> Fixed > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> > 7. Security Consideration >> >> Nit: "Considerations" >> > Fixed > >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> §7: >> >> > extensions ([RFC6311], [RFC7383]) do allow it to repeat, so there is >> > no an easy way to derive unique IV from IKEv2 header fields. >> >> Nit: "...not an easy way..." >> > Fixed > >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IPsec mailing list >> IPsec@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec >> >
- Re: [secdir] [IPsec] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ie… Daniel Migault
- Re: [secdir] [IPsec] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ie… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [secdir] [IPsec] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ie… Daniel Migault