Re: [tcpm] tcp-auth-opt issue: reserved keyID value
Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> Mon, 04 August 2008 17:38 UTC
Return-Path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tcpm-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-tcpm-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B1F33A6CF3; Mon, 4 Aug 2008 10:38:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD14C3A6CF3 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Aug 2008 10:38:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 x5Y9AvsFEBDe for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Aug 2008 10:38:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og110.obsmtp.com (exprod7og110.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.173]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 285F13A6A39 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Aug 2008 10:38:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([66.129.228.6]) by exprod7ob110.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP; Mon, 04 Aug 2008 10:39:05 PDT
Received: from p-emlb02-sac.jnpr.net ([66.129.254.47]) by p-emsmtp01.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 4 Aug 2008 10:38:53 -0700
Received: from emailwf1.jnpr.net ([10.10.2.33]) by p-emlb02-sac.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 4 Aug 2008 10:38:52 -0700
Received: from proton.jnpr.net ([10.10.2.37]) by emailwf1.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 4 Aug 2008 13:38:51 -0400
Received: from [172.28.13.57] ([172.28.13.57] RDNS failed) by proton.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 4 Aug 2008 13:38:51 -0400
Message-ID: <48973EA8.3090307@juniper.net>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:38:48 -0400
From: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
References: <4890F1FE.6060900@isi.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4890F1FE.6060900@isi.edu>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Aug 2008 17:38:51.0481 (UTC) FILETIME=[F5676C90:01C8F658]
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tcpm] tcp-auth-opt issue: reserved keyID value
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/tcpm>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Folks,
I am against reserving the value 0. If we don't reserve 0, we only need
one bit for the TSPI. Otherwise, we need two bits.
Ron
Joe Touch wrote:
> Ran suggested that some implementations would benefit from reserving a
> keyID as invalid (e.g., keyID 0):
>
> This assists the efficiency of some implementations.
>
> This also adds an additional requirement (e.g., keyID 0 MUST not be
> used) which must be validated during conformance testing.
>
> Comments on additional pros and cons would be useful. Examples of how
> this might impact implementation efficiency would be particularly useful
> (esp. if not encumbered)
>
>
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm