[storm] draft-ietf-storm-ipsec-ips-update - New title proposal

"Black, David" <david.black@emc.com> Tue, 02 July 2013 13:18 UTC

Return-Path: <david.black@emc.com>
X-Original-To: storm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: storm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CEE321F9CEB for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 06:18:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.449
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9bbEWiyKFQp8 for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 06:18:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (hop-nat-141.emc.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6142221F9CDC for <storm@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 06:18:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI01.isus.emc.com []) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id r62DICJ5010064 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 2 Jul 2013 09:18:12 -0400
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (mailhubhoprd02.lss.emc.com []) by hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Tue, 2 Jul 2013 09:18:02 -0400
Received: from mxhub11.corp.emc.com (mxhub11.corp.emc.com []) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id r62DI1de029364; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 09:18:01 -0400
Received: from mx15a.corp.emc.com ([]) by mxhub11.corp.emc.com ([]) with mapi; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 09:18:00 -0400
From: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
To: Tom Talpey <ttalpey@microsoft.com>, "storm@ietf.org" <storm@ietf.org>, "Paul_Koning@Dell.com" <Paul_Koning@Dell.com>
Importance: high
X-Priority: 1
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 09:18:00 -0400
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-storm-ipsec-ips-update - New title proposal
Thread-Index: Ac5yqwuewpr4eeBIT2quJXY1BPmnxAEen/Yw
Message-ID: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE71298333250@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
References: <614F550557B82C44AC27C492ADA391AA0774F9A0@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <614F550557B82C44AC27C492ADA391AA0774F9A0@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [storm] draft-ietf-storm-ipsec-ips-update - New title proposal
X-BeenThere: storm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Storage Maintenance WG <storm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/storm>, <mailto:storm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/storm>
List-Post: <mailto:storm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:storm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm>, <mailto:storm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 13:18:20 -0000

> 1) In section 1 Introduction, the term "IP Storage protocols" is not defined.
[... snip ...]
> Technically speaking, this comment applies to the title of the document as well.

I need to propose a new draft title, as that'll be needed to update references
in other drafts.  The straightforward thing to do is start from RFC 3723's
title, Securing Block Storage Protocols over IP.  Therefore I propose the
following new title for draft-ietf-storm-ipsec-ips-update;

	Securing Block Storage Protocols over IP:
	RFC 3723 Requirements Update for IPsec v3

The abstract and introduction will explain that these requirements have been
applied to protocols beyond block storage.

Does that work?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Talpey [mailto:ttalpey@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 5:11 PM
> To: storm@ietf.org; Black, David; Paul_Koning@Dell.com
> Subject: Comments on draft-ietf-storm-ipsec-ips-update
> I have the following comments from a review of the latest draft.
> 1) In section 1 Introduction, the term "IP Storage protocols" is not defined.
> For example, it's not clear whether NFS or SMB are intended to fall under this
> scope. And the document later refers to the various iWARP specifications,
> which are not limited to transporting storage. Assuming that's not the intent,
> I suggest defining the term, or restating it more generically. Technically
> speaking, this comment applies to the title of the document as well.
> 2) In section 1 Introduction, the text in the following sentence is vague:
>    ...  IP storage protocols can
>    be expected to operate at high data rates (multiple Gigabits/second);
>    the requirements in this document are strongly influenced by that
>    expectation, and hence may not be appropriate for use of IPsec with
>    other protocols that do not operate at high data rates.
> It's not clear what requirements may not be appropriate, and why. Indeed,
> later discussion makes specific requirements for >1Gb, and is silent on lower
> speed. If the requirements are not applicable in some cases, the cases should
> be named.
> Perhaps simply dropping the entire parenthetical statement "...and hence may
> not...high data rates".
> 3) In section 1.2 Updated RFCs, the word "update" appears but it's not clear
> what is updated in the many affected documents. Are there any required
> changes, outside of extending their RFC3723 references? And presumably, it is
> not the intention to retroactively make these requirements, therefore any
> existing RFC3723-compliant security approach remains intact?  Perhaps the
> statement would be more accurately "provides updated reference guidance for
> IPsec security requirements beyond those of RFC3723."
>    The requirements for IPsec usage with IP storage in RFC 3723 are used
>    by a number of protocols.  For that reason, beyond updating RFC 3723,
>    this document also updates the IPsec requirements for each protocol
>    specification that uses RFC 3723, i.e., the following RFCs in
>    addition to RFC 3723:
> 4) [editorial] In section 2.2 the word "astronomical" is unnecessary and
> should be deleted. Is there a reference for the 2^69 birthday bound of AES
> blocks? Point the discussion there.
>    3GB on a multi-gigabit/sec link.  In contrast, AES has a 128 bit
>    block size, which results in an astronomical birthdaya bound (2^69
>    bytes).  AES CBC is the primary mandatory-to-implement cryptographic
> The word "may" in the relevant requirement is not in RFC2119 form:
>    o  Implementations that support IKEv2 SHOULD also implement AES GCM
>       with 128-bit keys; other key sizes may be supported.
> 5) Also in section 2.2, the following requirement is unclear whether AES in
> CBC mode MUST be supported, or whether any use of AES in CBC mode MUST be
> implemented with a specific minimum key size. It seems the statement is "AES
> in CBC mode SHOULD be supported, with keys that MUST be at least 128 bits in
> length." Correct?
>    o  AES in CBC mode MUST be implemented with 128-bit keys; other key
>       sizes MAY be supported, and
> 6) Finally, in section 2.2 there is a new MUST requirement. This would appear
> to introduce an incompatibility with RFC 3723. Is it a SHOULD?
>    In addition, NULL encryption [RFC2410] MUST be implemented to enable
>    use of SAs that provide data origin authentication and data
>    integrity, but not confidentiality.  Other transforms MAY be
>    implemented in addition to those listed above.