IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[Verizon]" <wesley.m.eddy@nasa.gov> Mon, 22 June 2009 17:20 UTC

Return-Path: <wesley.m.eddy@nasa.gov>
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 1BB693A6AE2 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:20:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.563
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.563 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.036, 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 zid-RwIXwufN for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:20:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ndmsnpf01.ndc.nasa.gov (ndmsnpf01.ndc.nasa.gov [198.117.0.121]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C6493A696A for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:20:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ndjsppt03.ndc.nasa.gov (ndjsppt03.ndc.nasa.gov [198.117.1.102]) by ndmsnpf01.ndc.nasa.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AF7B2602CB; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:20:53 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from ndjshub01.ndc.nasa.gov (ndjshub01.ndc.nasa.gov [198.117.4.160]) by ndjsppt03.ndc.nasa.gov (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n5MHKraB022269; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:20:53 -0500
Received: from NDJSSCC01.ndc.nasa.gov ([198.117.4.166]) by ndjshub01.ndc.nasa.gov ([198.117.4.160]) with mapi; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:20:53 -0500
From: "Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[Verizon]" <wesley.m.eddy@nasa.gov>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@networkresonance.com>, Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:16:16 -0500
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] question about TCP-AO and rekeying
Thread-Index: AcnxvLnNxwVwXWKCRWCyH/1kGhwUhABnxf2g
Message-ID: <C304DB494AC0C04C87C6A6E2FF5603DB2217AB6A79@NDJSSCC01.ndc.nasa.gov>
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> <4A3B3290.9020906@isi.edu> <20090619132135.0DF111BE198@kilo.networkresonance.com> <4A3BB16A.1000508@isi.edu> <20090619161614.EFC4850822@romeo.rtfm.com> <4A3BBC2E.9040100@isi.edu> <20090619164724.2353850822@romeo.rtfm.com> <4A3BC59C.9090200@isi.edu> <20090620153548.C20C01C0154@kilo.networkresonance.com>
In-Reply-To: <20090620153548.C20C01C0154@kilo.networkresonance.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=1.12.7400:2.4.4, 1.2.40, 4.0.166 definitions=2009-06-22_13:2009-06-01, 2009-06-22, 2009-06-22 signatures=0
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: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:20:39 -0000

Since this thread has turned into ping-pong between Joe and
Eric, I'll break that pattern by putting in my assessment as
a WG participant ...

I think Eric's explanation that if multiple MKTs can be
matched to the outgoing SYN, then we can pick from them in
an implementation-dependent way, as long as we pick one key,
makes sense.  Yes, we can add complexity to disambiguate
how that selection is made as part of our spec (TSAD/TAPD),
but after reading the thread, I don't see clear value in that.

---------------------------
Wes Eddy
Network & Systems Architect
Verizon FNS / NASA GRC
Office: (216) 433-6682
---------------------------

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email