IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tram] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-tram-turn-third-party-authz-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> Tue, 21 April 2015 18:40 UTC

Return-Path: <rsalz@akamai.com>
X-Original-To: tram@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tram@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ABE11A8938; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 11:40:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.611
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.611 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 FxIl8MfNVs5c; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 11:40:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from prod-mail-xrelay07.akamai.com (prod-mail-xrelay07.akamai.com [72.246.2.115]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 614CE1A892E; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 11:40:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from prod-mail-xrelay07.akamai.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by postfix.imss70 (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4A17477C4; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 18:40:13 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from prod-mail-relay06.akamai.com (prod-mail-relay06.akamai.com [172.17.120.126]) by prod-mail-xrelay07.akamai.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92CB047843; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 18:40:08 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com (usma1ex-cas1.msg.corp.akamai.com [172.27.123.30]) by prod-mail-relay06.akamai.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E1CC202A; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 18:40:08 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB2.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.102) by usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.913.22; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 14:40:07 -0400
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB2.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.102]) by usma1ex-dag1mb2.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.102]) with mapi id 15.00.0913.011; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 14:40:07 -0400
From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
To: "Williams, Brandon" <bowill@akamai.com>, "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <tireddy@cisco.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [tram] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-tram-turn-third-party-authz-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AdB3YVGPz12ySXkWT06k1SM3uWcWXAFIhZcAAAhS4bA=
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 18:40:07 +0000
Message-ID: <f7c4360f37a64de39c7c9cb850afabfa@usma1ex-dag1mb2.msg.corp.akamai.com>
References: <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A4120E0BD@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <55369856.7050203@akamai.com>
In-Reply-To: <55369856.7050203@akamai.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.19.44.228]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tram/-y2_18QJYTRzDXKVutmigvo6OL8>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 13:01:45 -0700
Cc: "rlb@ipv.sx" <rlb@ipv.sx>, "tram-chairs@ietf.org" <tram-chairs@ietf.org>, "tram@ietf.org" <tram@ietf.org>, "Stephen Farrell (stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie)" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Subject: Re: [tram] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-tram-turn-third-party-authz-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: tram@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussing the creation of a Turn Revised And Modernized \(TRAM\) WG, which goal is to consolidate the various initiatives to update TURN and STUN." <tram.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tram>, <mailto:tram-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tram/>
List-Post: <mailto:tram@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tram-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram>, <mailto:tram-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 18:40:18 -0000

> I'm not sure that key length alone is enough to facilitate the current hash
> agility plan, which is to require a client to send both SHA256 and
> SHA1 HMACs. IMO, either this draft should require 256 bit keys minimum and
> describe what to do to generate a SHA1 key (probably run SHA1 on the
> SHA256 key) or the stunbis editors should commit to providing this
> information in stunbis. I just want to be certain that we will be telling
> implementors what to do somewhere.

+1.

It seems that this draft is the place to put "how to turn the 256bit HMAC key into something usable for the sha1 hmac"

Key size is not an unambiguous algorithm identifier.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email