IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] question about TCP-AO and rekeying

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Fri, 19 June 2009 06:39 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@ISI.EDU>
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 DDC6E3A6B95 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:39:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.431
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.431 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.168, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 XydJjoUais05 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:39:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 042273A6B29 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:39:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.46] (pool-71-105-84-152.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net [71.105.84.152]) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n5J6dC7F008856; Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:39:14 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4A3B3290.9020906@isi.edu>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:39:12 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@networkresonance.com>
References: <4A2AB973.3030203@isi.edu> <20090616131807.75C481BC6EB@kilo.networkresonance.com> <4A37A202.9020500@isi.edu> <20090617054551.A4E0C1BCA23@kilo.networkresonance.com> <4A388C37.3030703@isi.edu> <20090617140939.A3AB61BCC72@kilo.networkresonance.com> <4A390EC0.6070003@isi.edu> <20090617161518.5276C50822@romeo.rtfm.com> <4A3917B7.20301@isi.edu> <20090617232813.1C49D50822@romeo.rtfm.com> <4A39C800.2030901@isi.edu> <20090618051622.719361BDC6B@kilo.networkresonance.com> <4A39CE62.9050201@isi.edu> <20090618135721.164F31BDF06@kilo.networkresonance.com> <4A3A4A5D.2060504@isi.edu> <20090619043328.6C06E1BE12E@kilo.networkresonance.com>
In-Reply-To: <20090619043328.6C06E1BE12E@kilo.networkresonance.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: tcpm Extensions WG <tcpm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] question about TCP-AO and rekeying
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 06:39:22 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Eric Rescorla wrote:
...
>> I agree that non-overlap is necessary to avoid injection. The trouble is
>> that there are different ways to avoid non-overlap which we are
>> currently leaving as "implementation dependent". If we leave them open,
>> I am concerned that KMPs will not be able to ensure that two endpoints
>> will pick corresponding MKTs for a given segment.
> 
> Really? I would imagine this is precisely the invariant that some
> putative KMP would enforce.

If that's where we put that logic, what happens when we don't have a
KMP? How do we know that both ends will do the same thing with a set of
manually entered keys?

Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAko7MpAACgkQE5f5cImnZruMoACg33VFmTOd0+AUK91FCWif5VMq
Rp0Amwfm5lvzAizSho5HFDctksmPHhf+
=BYE0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

v2.37.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status