Subject: [babel] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-babel-dtls-03

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 23:43:46 -0500

Hi,

This message begins a Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-babel-dtls
running to January 21st. Please comment on whether or not you think
the draft is ready for publication.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 1424 Pro Shop Court, Davenport, FL 33896 USA
 [email-masked]

---

From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2019 09:36:47 +0100

> the draft is ready for publication.

I support publication :)

-Toke

---

From: Antonin Décimo <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 19:30:30 +0100

Hello Donald,

I support publication.

-- Antonin

---

From: David Schinazi <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 11:33:35 -0800

(Stating the obvious, as co-author) I support publication.

---

From: Dave Taht <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 13:40:30 -0800

well, I've been playing catchup on these drafts for a while and had
barely looked at this before now.

* As usual, I like having two interoperable implementations before
committing to a draft.

To me, this is unclear:

" When a Babel node
   discovers a new neighbor (generally by receiving an unencrypted
   multicast Babel packet), it compares the neighbour's IPv6 link-local
   address with its own, using network byte ordering.  If a node's
   address is lower than the recently discovered neighbor's address, it
   acts as a client and connects to the neighbor.  In other words, the
   node with the lowest address is the DTLS client for this pairwise
   relationship.  As an example, fe80::1:2 is considered lower than
   fe80::2:1."

A DTLS enabled node receiving that unencrypted multicast hello packet
(on the main babel port? on the dtls port?), is then supposed to try
contacting the other router on the DTLS port?

Recieving a hello from a lower numbered fe80 address means you wait
for the lower numbered fe80 address to initiate (so you send a hello
with or without an ihu?)

So a DOS attack is merely lots of hellos and a very slow DTLS
exchange? (what are the timeouts associated with a DTLS negotiation?)

In the HMAC draft there was a 300ms timeout suggested for some things.

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 11:33 AM David Schinazi <[email-masked]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 10:30 AM Antonin Décimo <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Donald,
>>
>> I support publication.
>>
>> -- Antonin
>
> _______________________________________________
> babel mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel

--

Dave Täht
CTO, TekLibre, LLC
http://www.teklibre.com
Tel: 1-831-205-9740

---

From: David Schinazi <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 13:46:51 -0800

Hi Dave,

The questions you ask are answered in different sections of the draft.
If you have suggestions on how to clarify the document, please let us know
we'd love to make it as clear as possible.

David

---

From: Matthieu Boutier <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 09:22:08 +0100

I support publication.

Matthieu

---

From: Weronika Kołodziejak <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 18:12:51 +0100

Hello Donald,

I support publication.

Weronika

---

From: Dave Taht <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 09:27:07 -0800

Lacking two workable interoperating implementations, and some
deployment experience, I cannot support this draft. I think it is
presently too vague and fuzzy to lead to working implementations.

-- 

Dave Täht
CTO, TekLibre, LLC
http://www.teklibre.com
Tel: 1-831-205-9740

---

From: Dave Taht <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 17:30:30 -0800

As I have been the only objector to this draft, I hereby lift my
objection and support publication.