Re: [tcpinc] draft-bittau-tcpinc-tcpeno-02

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Mon, 21 September 2015 21:59 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 341E41A89A9 for <tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 14:59:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 jE-po7RxLCPG for <tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 14:59:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nitro.isi.edu (nitro.isi.edu [128.9.208.207]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF9CA1A88E2 for <tcpinc@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 14:58:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.9.184.150] ([128.9.184.150]) (authenticated bits=0) by nitro.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t8LLwK0I006961 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 21 Sep 2015 14:58:21 -0700 (PDT)
To: "Scharf, Michael (Michael)" <michael.scharf@alcatel-lucent.com>, tcpinc <tcpinc@ietf.org>
References: <655C07320163294895BBADA28372AF5D484C6B71@FR712WXCHMBA15.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <56007D7A.4080403@isi.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 14:58:18 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <655C07320163294895BBADA28372AF5D484C6B71@FR712WXCHMBA15.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-MailScanner-ID: t8LLwK0I006961
X-ISI-4-69-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpinc/KbOKu4l8mnUDcuSx1Z_FNjrhksU>
Cc: touch@isi.edu
Subject: Re: [tcpinc] draft-bittau-tcpinc-tcpeno-02
X-BeenThere: tcpinc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for adding encryption to TCP." <tcpinc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpinc>, <mailto:tcpinc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpinc/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpinc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpinc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc>, <mailto:tcpinc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 21:59:02 -0000


On 9/20/2015 9:06 AM, Scharf, Michael (Michael) wrote:
...
> * Section 2, page 4: "Provide signaling through which applications 
> can better take advantage of TCP-level encryption (for instance by
> improving authentication mechanisms in the presence of TCP-level
> encryption)." Since authentication is listed here: How does this
> option interact with TCP-AO? For instance, I think this document
> could perhaps discuss what a receiver may do if a SYN segment both
> with TCP-ENO and TCP-AO options is received. This is a question much
> closer to the SYN handshake negotiation mechanics than various other
> sections of the document.

FWIW, TCP-AO must precede TCP-ENO processing. If you have a TCP-AO key,
it might be preferable to just encrypt using that key (as per
draft-touch-tcp-ao-encrypt).

...
> * Section 8: Why does TCP-ENO not allocate an TCP Experimental 
> Option Experiment Identifier according to RFC 6994?

+1

Joe