Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-hokey-key-mgm

"Glen Zorn" <gwz@net-zen.net> Wed, 12 August 2009 03:43 UTC

Return-Path: <gwz@net-zen.net>
X-Original-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97C2B3A66B4 for <secdir@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Aug 2009 20:43:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.803
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.803 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.796, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k8wcYN6eFEky for <secdir@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Aug 2009 20:43:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plsmtpa01-07.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtpa01-07.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [72.167.82.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 60B313A6947 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Aug 2009 20:43:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 30295 invoked from network); 12 Aug 2009 03:42:28 -0000
Received: from unknown (71.231.55.1) by p3plsmtpa01-07.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (72.167.82.87) with ESMTP; 12 Aug 2009 03:42:27 -0000
From: Glen Zorn <gwz@net-zen.net>
To: 'Hoeper Katrin-QWKN37' <khoeper@motorola.com>, 'Glen Zorn' <glenzorn@comcast.net>, 'Kurt Zeilenga' <Kurt.Zeilenga@Isode.com>
References: <369289D9-6E39-4673-B50E-0090BBBB6EB2@Isode.com> <00bf01ca19e0$1b703e70$5250bb50$@net> <B1002512-9406-4681-965C-17A7C189DF98@Isode.com> <004f01ca1a22$56af4de0$040de9a0$@net> <3A241A6B234BE948B8B474D261FEBC2F06555C24@de01exm68.ds.mot.com>
In-Reply-To: <3A241A6B234BE948B8B474D261FEBC2F06555C24@de01exm68.ds.mot.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 20:42:00 -0700
Organization: Network Zen
Message-ID: <010e01ca1afe$d9c82b70$8d588250$@net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcoZ6RjwgdOHSJLUTSaXyXUToQZhhgAKfEsgAC8KAkAAC4hLEA==
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: draft-ietf-hokey-key-mgm@tools.ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-hokey-key-mgm
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 03:43:38 -0000

Hoeper Katrin-QWKN37 [mailto:khoeper@motorola.com] writes:

...

> > Thanks for pointing that out.  In fact, the document should _not_
> talk
> > about
> > the use of KDE in ERP, since it doesn't exist ;-).  Re-re-re-reading
> ;-)
> > section 6 (which is what I think you are talking about?), I noticed
> > A couple of other errors, too.  For example, section 3 says "Here,
> > EAP-Initiate and EAP-Finish messages are exchanged between the peer
> and
> > the
> > home AAA server, with the bootstrapping flag in the EAP-Initiate
> message
> > set"; unfortunately, this is impossible, since the peer and AAA
> server
> do
> > not speak the same protocol.  Another example of the same kind of
> fuzzy
> > writing is in the second paragraph of the same section: "In this
> case,
> the
> > local ER server requesting the DSRK MUST include a KDE-Request
> message
> in
> > the first EAP-Response   message from the peer".  This _should_ say "
> In
> > this case, the local ER server requesting the DSRK MUST include a
> > KDE-Request message in the AAA packet encapsulating the first
> EAP-Response
> > message from the peer" in order to agree with RFC 5296 (in fact,
> though,
> > there's no need for the local ERP server to be involved in this at
> all,
> > except that that is (erroneously, I think) specified in 5296).
> >
> > ...
> >
> [KH] Glen, I think you are talking about Section 5 not 3, are you
> looking at the current version
> (http://ietfreport.isoc.org/all-ids/draft-ietf-hokey-key-mgm-09.txt)?
> 
> Could you please re-check? I am sure your comments still apply, but I'd
> like to know which parts are affected.

Yes, you're right.  I really hate it when people change documents in the
middle of reviews. It's really annoying, especially since I just did it
myself a couple of days ago ;-).

> 
> AFAIK, Section 5 is in complete alignment with RFC 5296 and uses the
> same terminology and same protocol description. I understand that there
> are some problems in RFC 5296 and there is a request for errata
> (http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5296&eid=1825).
> 
> Should I wait until this (and possibly other) errata has been approved
> and then modify the key management draft accordingly? If I make changes
> now, with the current RFC 5296, we would have a description on how to
> use KDE with ERP that does not match the description in RFC 5296.

The problem is that RFC 5296 says to do things that just aren't possible, so
we have a situation where we can either continue to create incorrect
specifications or correctly specify behavior that contradicts a published
RFC.  Personally, I'd go for the latter: change the draft to specify what
the authors of 5296 obviously _meant_ to say & update 5296 later.