[tcpm] Comments on draft-ietf-tcpm-ao-test-vectors

"Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de> Mon, 11 October 2021 22:10 UTC

Return-Path: <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45DB43A0DEC; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 15:10:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=hs-esslingen.de
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7OL-jN9mM9fF; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 15:10:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.hs-esslingen.de (mail.hs-esslingen.de []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7BC93A0DEE; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 15:10:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain []) by mail.hs-esslingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5141425A19; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 00:10:23 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hs-esslingen.de; s=mail; t=1633990223; bh=TZ+Mwblihrd46Ie32impjUNSXo8kICpYf9Q8Loo1fpc=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:From; b=OomqmGgUxhk4gxKodFFmZhXChlQv9fO2e6ISfRK6o97GyUdvzW8SOYeiyWl9dpNmI kEhMtTS2ix2iHNZ5WXB8wrR2VxoeEGBAJzI3LMqjRQMTfluy4vtgKxnfoJFr0UFFG/ j9xV/bdxkjwNh6gzQb5t9bpW6qUKpUYTkgR/NzGY=
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.7.1 (20120429) (Debian) at hs-esslingen.de
Received: from mail.hs-esslingen.de ([]) by localhost (hs-esslingen.de []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DqFsSKHm_xWi; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 00:10:22 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from rznt8202.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de (rznt8202.hs-esslingen.de []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.hs-esslingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 00:10:22 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from rznt8202.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de ( by rznt8202.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2176.14; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 00:10:21 +0200
Received: from rznt8202.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de ([fe80::aca4:171a:3ee1:57e0]) by rznt8202.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de ([fe80::aca4:171a:3ee1:57e0%3]) with mapi id 15.01.2176.014; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 00:10:21 +0200
From: "Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
To: "draft-ietf-tcpm-ao-test-vectors@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-tcpm-ao-test-vectors@ietf.org>
CC: "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-ietf-tcpm-ao-test-vectors
Thread-Index: Ade+7L/NfnIdD3fLSGCm/hVNKhLVIg==
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2021 22:10:21 +0000
Message-ID: <60c26250abb14655b192083b00f3cd14@hs-esslingen.de>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg=SHA1; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0041_01D7BEFD.8A303F20"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/WF6OApDuj_nSlY_S-J-G1bgxWp0>
Subject: [tcpm] Comments on draft-ietf-tcpm-ao-test-vectors
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 11 Oct 2021 22:10:36 -0000

Joe, Juhamatti,

I have read draft-ietf-tcpm-ao-test-vectors-01. I find this document useful. I 
cannot validate the actual test vectors, but I have some (minor) editorial 

* Abstract:  "The vectors also validate both whole TCP segments as well as 
segments whose options are excluded for NAT traversal."

I find the term "NAT traversal" confusing in this context. As outlined in 
Section 9.2 of RFC 5925, "TCP-AO cannot interoperate natively across NAT/NAPT 
(Network Address Port Translation) devices, which modify the IP addresses 
and/or port numbers." The term "middlebox" used in Section 9.1 of RFC 5925 may 
be a better choice.

* Introduction: "This document provides test vectors from an implementation 
that has been validated against another routing vendor for interoperability.."

IMHO a better wording instead of "another routing vendor" would be "another 
implementation" or the like.

Nit: ".." at the end oft he sentence.

* Section 3.1: "The terms 'active' and 'passive' are used as defined for TCP 

I think TCPM could (and should) start using 793bis as reference for TCP in 
documents finished after 793bis, as far as possible. Why do we not eat our own 

* Section 3.1.1 and elsewhere

The document uses inconsistent spelling of hex numbers. In section 3.1.1 
capital letters are used, unlike the later examples. I don't understand why. 
Also, maybe it could make sense to better emphasise that some values are 
decimal, while others are hex or binary. In most cases it is relatively clear 
from the context, but in section 3.1.1 one actually has to look at the numbers 
to understand the encoding.

Best regards

(with chair hat off)