IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sfc] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-integrity-06: (with COMMENT)

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Thu, 15 July 2021 14:28 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCE8D3A12BB; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 07:28:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 ZMLZFS-S3P3K; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 07:28:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe30.google.com (mail-vs1-xe30.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e30]) (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 E7B153A12B7; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 07:28:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe30.google.com with SMTP id j8so3153290vsd.0; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 07:28:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=3P7Z1EXJJVTN7+kvSeq/jXge8CDRooTDH25BPk+tulY=; b=svtsKDmQh0DPr6+wTkguQnm+Uf1mYAkvU4537rh09I+6dzOPBdemSm/+cZUXg13nkV guk2bcFgWiWLSbISqW8CRuM6DmyYQy5s+9A/+BDsg3FyBeYLP2s7CsXzDL0h1YwdcmXk jPOEE1MzSVX/XJpZ3C5FKN1yc9IjpriVG1qYF+rkdhTrStj1S2rNhONe1T7vZGguO0bz CLy+gmGzkQ6pSWH/i6+rNPISqjcbmczPN9f6hydGB/WG8jzSj5UVn2yUsMT/8zHo79oj kvDeMlm9EaWdNvkh4/NWO/PRcd5dtNzCVgkVLBFV8K39Eiko9tjHZks+mg2Ac4mtGH/F k2+A==
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=3P7Z1EXJJVTN7+kvSeq/jXge8CDRooTDH25BPk+tulY=; b=JvaaZuWCg6PKfUhlTYTC8tSCYVMxD3l94CIDH+5tr+0Ead7PGwmmuia0TdChnQp/C8 baztxblMilnHIbT833WQiR0ctNaBeOmVX7CT/yyFlvIdNa1imIS0zAsMuX1ajaQJ+4b4 mDGrVjUDVbnrB158Qx4SlvrzMqnONT41wNT/AGmvI3W4pcvSjS/IJlSoudFJS1hA3XNj Lhbh6OHUVKedppyWxDMTkOspVybfYr075P9Di/G1iu4uOgNTAWOEjAMiPpMauMVoH2gK BomOBsqIfq6fwUgFs9oQ1WKYybOtctMQTHd0aYP9JzziQQUT2NaWKGHl2U7alUKvPNjc LFHw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532nihgAjLk5g/OeKf7o0c8O/98ojiDlwDR5N/eev4HUNcKKbaCO oJplKZu+2/vyvPvC75YoQjTQSlOSmSMR/CFtOEA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyAISdKNL2vnq2g4iM1uLJiNn8H+uryXI5OSeR5wCfO4utwwiVuVw+BxFd5zP9BlFGAMdTkERozXFWMTwkOOqQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:30a3:: with SMTP id y3mr6559759vsd.33.1626359288369; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 07:28:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <162611498183.7775.3562397379733537345@ietfa.amsl.com> <23837_1626115941_60EC8F65_23837_478_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330353BD8C2@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAMMESsx0ARXu2gpDT0MDxWT8ZPCZ8p97mcS43usAvPz=79vbiA@mail.gmail.com> <13781_1626118873_60EC9AD9_13781_9_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330353BDA95@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <13781_1626118873_60EC9AD9_13781_9_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330353BDA95@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2021 07:27:57 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwbmLh1j+Efmi85vTXZLL7X2kg3fDdaaXMtVL7QtQ2HDHQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Cc: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "gregimirsky@gmail.com" <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, "draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-integrity@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-integrity@ietf.org>, "sfc-chairs@ietf.org" <sfc-chairs@ietf.org>, "sfc@ietf.org" <sfc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a9163b05c72a475c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/phLFxf1sFnb7oaIe1uDgXjBzlLc>
Subject: Re: [sfc] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-integrity-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Service Chaining <sfc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sfc>, <mailto:sfc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sfc/>
List-Post: <mailto:sfc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sfc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc>, <mailto:sfc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2021 14:28:15 -0000

On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 12:41 PM <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:

> [Med] Not sure about this given that RFC8300 says the following:
>
>       NSH itself does not mandate protocol-specific integrity
>       protection.  However, if an operator deems protection is required,
>       several options are viable:
>
>       1.  SFF/SF NSH verification
>       ...
>       2.  Transport Security
>       ...
>       3.  NSH Variable Header-Based Integrity
>
>           Lastly, NSH MD Type 2 provides, via variable-length headers,
>           the ability to append cryptographic integrity protection to
>           the NSH packet.  The implementation of such a scheme is
>           outside the scope of this document.
>
> The I-D is basically the third option.
>

One of the things an "Updates" gives us is a forward pointer from RFC 8300
to this document.  I think when presented in the context you have here, the
notion of such linkage is better than "useless".

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email