Re: [secdir] [IPsec] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv-07: (with COMMENT)

Daniel Migault <daniel.migault@ericsson.com> Mon, 21 October 2019 19:30 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 0E55612086C; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 12:30:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, 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] 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 DjDTQwaJ5OCq; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 12:30:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-f65.google.com (mail-vs1-f65.google.com [209.85.217.65]) (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 A9DF71208B8; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 12:30:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-f65.google.com with SMTP id v19so9684561vsv.3; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 12:30:25 -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=Drs9YQIPcb6crNlgYPNih2kiFPiuBKFxKfjUn0iEIK8=; b=Gy7/za9YBDIR1DFo6vj+bKcUW80A0vak8TtUkY/2lVMTyrJxTzePF5FQV0A/xSbZ4K Di76mtxmOHU/8UqymcnumMCXoOiQmDSX7Km4W5oezGpjJN48DjoANsjpRLIls1522Ehh M2aiB+9QaPsg2SobZoiqDQa1iJlkIjTjf20SSNcY7J0Xh6DtYmnWDCiPqKT5mUqE803Z hzomYh5YzqDPKlU7p4TYI/LvGnZtGNWHCFxJ6HkEpwEcdZij24fTxdClJLjZnypQgyky f2nFMvwIcYP7kNYMq0s8aJz6oSCV5NbfrfYRM9jk1jl1oZe9+cX6+gfz6pTSRxUkYGRG 988A==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUYT5qPDgyHKWOboaEkBzGVAlsuAExvhAYWXivTwNaJL18XYgXv 6N/gZ1gyFoTTsxinAsU8L0L1MGn87xWPTHU9JKeJcOB4UWo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzvkF5re67UyMGTIG+/zPERnNlEoy0IglN7TZEwsMczfsptUMLKYAwk1bhmM/nAWf2sMQCzAd22w/8vVevC/qE=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:e88b:: with SMTP id x11mr14296897vsn.180.1571686224552; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 12:30:24 -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> <CADZyTkmRH71-GPm10DcNU7EFh==0dVSx9VvNe28CmA+KmoEOJQ@mail.gmail.com> <cad0d84a-36db-70ec-9599-1c1b56717fe9@isode.com>
In-Reply-To: <cad0d84a-36db-70ec-9599-1c1b56717fe9@isode.com>
From: Daniel Migault <daniel.migault@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:30:13 -0400
Message-ID: <CADZyTkkVu+3e8L2x7=9CzEDJQmMgpB47PkkMFyuUvD+waoEBXA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Cc: Daniel Migault <daniel.migault=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, secdir@ietf.org, IPsecME WG <ipsec@ietf.org>, ipsecme-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001ce8b1059570b77c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/t0aS2FBQSc6XnS-42f3UboxoWIA>
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: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 19:30:37 -0000

Thanks Alexey,

I just posted a new version with the following text:

"""
   The IANA has assigned the following code points to the registry
   Transform Type 1 - Encryption Algorithm Transform IDs [IANA]:

"""

Yours,
Daniel

On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 7:49 AM Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>;
wrote:

> Hi Daniel,
> On 17/10/2019 15:05, Daniel Migault wrote:
>
> 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
>
> Thank you for posting -08 and -09.
>
> I just need one more change: IANA pointed out that you removed the name of
> the registry from the IANA Considerations section. You should add it back,
> as not having it in the document is confusing.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Alexey
>
> 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
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> secdir mailing listsecdir@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir
> wiki: http://tools.ietf.org/area/sec/trac/wiki/SecDirReview
>
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list
> IPsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
>