[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Calling the question: derived vs. explicit IV
William Allen Simpson wrote:
>
> > From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@MIT.EDU>
> > Are you saying that there will be two (or more) supported domains of
> > interpretation, one for manual keying and another for Oakley/ISAKMP?
> >
> > DOI is a ISAKMP term. As such, it doesn't make sense for manual keying.
> >
This is an aside to your discussion: why doesn't DOI refer to manual SA
configuration and keying? I'm currently doing some design work for a
router that will initially support manual SA's and keys (and will
continue to do so even after ISAKMP is integrated into the system), and
while DOI is moot at this point since there's only one, it seems to me
that open design principles call for putting in hooks for future DOI's,
even for the manual config. Am I missing something? I though DOI was a
IPsec term...
> OK, "universes" is the term used earlier by Moskowitz.
>
> And your next answer appears to indicate that yes, when there is vendor
> and market interest in manual keying, it will be a different "universe",
> and it will continue to be compatible with RFC-1829 and -1851.
>
> > Are you saying that it will be the official policy of the IETF that
> > RFC-1829 and its successors will advance to Internet Standard as the
> > method to use for manual keying?
> >
> > That depends on whether there is any vendor and market interest in
> > manual keying and backwards compatibility with the old boxes. I have
> > been told that most vendors what to get away from manual keying as fast
> > as they can. If there's no interest in manual keying, then we can let
> > RFC-1829 either (a) not advance, or (b) go to historic. That however,
> > is not a matter that this working group needs to decide now.
> >
> I'm confused by your answer. It's not?
>
> It was my thought, and the thought of others with whom I have
> corresponded, that your postings were introducing incompatibility with
> RFC-1829 and -1851 for manual keying.
>
> Manual keying is an absolute requirement in numerous situations. For
> example, chicken and egg problems with otherwise insecure distributed
> configuration of security parameters.
>
> In my view, this entire question revolves around choosing the best
> technical solution for manual configuration of DES and 3DES. And thus,
> compatibility with RFC-1829 and -1851.
>
> This straw poll is only talking about IVs within the DOI of
> Oakley/ISAKMP?
>
> I already have the sentence:
>
> Alternative IV generation techniques MAY be specified when dynami-
> cally configured via a key management protocol.
>
> In which case, why not simply add a few sentences to ISAKMP-DOI saying
> that an explicit IV is used?
>
> > Is a MAC required or optional?
> >
> > The MAC is optional; however, if it isn't there, then obviously data
> > integrity wasn't required or important. If data integrity is a
> > requirement, then you should be using a MAC.
> >
> Since the MAC is optional, then anti-replay is optional. As the current
> drafts assume.
>
> And if anti-replay is optional, then sequence number checking is
> optional, too. As the current drafts assume.
>
> In short, we have arrived at the opposite assumption about sequence
> number wrapping....
>
> WSimpson@UMich.edu
> Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
> BSimpson@MorningStar.com
> Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2
Follow-Ups:
References: