Re: [stir] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-stir-certificates-16: (with DISCUSS)

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Wed, 13 December 2017 16:29 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Original-To: stir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: stir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70CDA127871 for <stir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 08:29:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 aqn9_5TiKBiu for <stir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 08:29:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yb0-x22b.google.com (mail-yb0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::22b]) (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 AA5A3127077 for <stir@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 08:29:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yb0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id h28so1208229ybj.5 for <stir@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 08:29:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=6JDErYo/kIM239mHxP40rqSI97AoIPvWsJjDJ7MYhMY=; b=gu4IHN5tuwb2zTqwh84cK0kW+DpBUPA+UGHBN3wxjy5fLkmDn17PfzrVGBjPhl8zCa ioxRfcKmYk2zK/dgFOf1OT89MckPzcOwQYbi0be3oRR828yhRT+SQzYUtk56w9vLXRnY 9KHg1QbEiWC9GxS/koB3si0JWegrX1bAAw0+TYLZRBarIwaHX6YmOm9TiNmwOfsv+RVP Ocnn3ey1zbcrCSyEol5jxo+Ku4CDe4TtKSwTzxFHCTs1gyqK1z3Lx6Ln4Il1v7EqqSwl gBAqbluQkn972RgfCSpuj+ltMJKdw8vhyygPNetdiARewZNN/ETMldbkN5WprnNmpfsr jynw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=6JDErYo/kIM239mHxP40rqSI97AoIPvWsJjDJ7MYhMY=; b=OlOa/bBz6xyepWjj2dyfqh1xzmRh9Un9Vxng8bOko+I4TvGpPe8yWzoWGFQz3rrMwR KViwN7yjhkuiQ5hDe9AFsqF4NVD3mmpwwshoLWehhcSISCOsUn96GWKhG63/Uw3WoqZU 5L83ixd7eaqlMtnHG0+CMPHtNTx1HSMmQ2v/33zgWbFYsI5SVKlgpGBoL7uXAWm+f1ei u+eiFIun4GGe+CUsXgaD1V/4SbPc1LDQK4o+6ZnXr+59Lyw9XmdwMeVn75UrPfQrxpJw xCYlSlw+7z+N7nDkwWFuBYW55gq6WT5eqBdT3YyyQZI6NFT1kBHCRJ81A4IHlTcGyFpC JDdA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mL71SHPs2oihcdvPdqZokWJ/nKzDOHswY5MKKc9LCBb8m5Tqh+P 7sb0ZAtEqqkUUjWjjr6jVwv+SO2tQXUovZl5UD+HRw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBoumHaZLROjCy1/NnK03MNfr+blUqPPqZnDVeQdUeMS7Yn1HEDut6LlgPjmmTlyl8UPADaddNGra/GntA+A9MY4=
X-Received: by 10.37.224.215 with SMTP id x206mr2209339ybg.200.1513182580654; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 08:29:40 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.129.123.132 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 08:29:00 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <1e300ca0-f9fd-0079-ea1f-851fe30283cd@nostrum.com>
References: <151312309254.29995.11111198641956884169.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <1e300ca0-f9fd-0079-ea1f-851fe30283cd@nostrum.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 08:29:00 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBP3zB02VoxNKSLUTR66LwOrbmEE7WCRWAk6VSEVTCHTzQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-stir-certificates@ietf.org, stir-chairs@ietf.org, stir@ietf.org, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c08689633592505603b465a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stir/ZPL1DvRhiwoHw1jBYCjKclXRot4>
Subject: Re: [stir] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-stir-certificates-16: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: stir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Telephone Identity Revisited <stir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/stir>, <mailto:stir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/stir/>
List-Post: <mailto:stir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir>, <mailto:stir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 16:29:44 -0000

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 8:24 AM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:

> On 12/12/17 17:58, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>>
>>     national policies.  The count field is only applicable to start
>>     fields' whose values do not include "*" or "#" (i.e., a
>>     TelephoneNumber that does not include "*" or "#").  count never
>>     overflows a TelephoneNumber digit boundary (i.e., a
>>     TelephoneNumberRange with TelephoneNumber=10 with a count=91 will
>>     address numbers 10-99).
>>
>> This text doesn't seem very clear. When you say "never overflows a digit
>> boundary" do you mean "doesn't extend the integer to the left"? Because
>> you sure seem to be overflowing the 1s place here.
>>
>
> Based on the in-room conversation in Singapore, the notion here seems to
> be that the number does not increase in length.
>
> Is the algorithm that you are given the input TN, Count, and TN
>> consists D digits that the range is:
>>
>>    MIN(TN + Count, 10^D - 1)
>>
>> That would be consistent with your example here, but I don't think
>> consistent
>> with your text. Or do you mean something else?
>>
>>
> Your formula above matches my understanding, and I think including it in
> the document as the formal definition of how 'count' behaves would be the
> best way to address the lack of clarity you cite.


That would be fine. As long as people are onboard with this, I'm happy to
withdraw my discuss and let you and the WG handle this.

-Ekr


>
> /a
>
>