From nobody Fri Feb 1 16:40:56 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49B3A1312DF; Fri, 1 Feb 2019 16:40:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 43VpLKXu8oTz; Fri, 1 Feb 2019 16:40:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pg1-x52b.google.com (mail-pg1-x52b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D95B91312B9; Fri, 1 Feb 2019 16:40:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pg1-x52b.google.com with SMTP id z10so3704234pgp.7; Fri, 01 Feb 2019 16:40:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=4/33flhkB2g5g3s5OE6Dk9pIHTV4ZtVQF4mlOlkcyIw=; b=HZyW3S9L9H1wQ5MH9tuvYs1BU2xnCPzbwi2WraQqfgKKuvlO/m2LeN6CVOgLH6lgTj xaoM6oQXOl42ohYPWjFdqzwFfru6zROin7V8MFyHDdDmQXko7UQxiZUm9zTAFOxvpmOQ VFvIH4GMTW5fYd64a1JTYQeW8D/M4pg3AZsFOphyTXR3G9Dyek1eKfr8ihOULyc/i5al mM5SVOfl3tl7ec9cepYUCN7p2r/shof//eZzOWLWZ9iW9ADCzmSqvS9fgmXECNAXA4F4 zpT28KtEGQcso8qblaXDPqIxjmbDrec1X7SJcUJ2VwcJFb3tp4k2jkQGH0hVQ/rGTNf5 dxtw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=4/33flhkB2g5g3s5OE6Dk9pIHTV4ZtVQF4mlOlkcyIw=; b=q5pHxMEkHkqMkjboPoCGOAwfoeaPgYa2Q/b2cj5msLUzIB0PJEtfIj142StFBc+fna FrWmJelSsDYKxdX3lqbAggsiP6M028Ad0gK+CrN69ZcA5kU1NshqFmsErpOWuOGYPIiG /repdjkxuZGptZ6jzISGJRhZH0g3zW0SsYRsi4aqPwa1R35zJZUFYixvx1feGK9s8TvG 7kztvPadOuJRb2jETEsWYqY8/d3FMF9Y3UPNKAmLhL8SzOtazFoMTqLIa93Z8hoDwKOq CHCkktQn2zksUaBVO9AuVsbGTSaJZnbiKBL7oIJY97pVgHePN4Lgd+cWisavSVjOGauQ nU3A== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuaCdNpxfWkLljpM4HcWpQuT+cMla7j6cWNx3FwqvjWEt9T4LqeT 7KmuQdP23wucyKBBAZKjbLIEnExQEnfQStlxmaAh7lTR X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IZbw1zapvNJ6/1yJd/Mn813XywLbDfxOFWc7zmus2nooyfDVXmbe7qHPVHUos/hV5ur9nb+zfRU6g8QQZf1Zdk= X-Received: by 2002:a65:6099:: with SMTP id t25mr135342pgu.448.1549068028305; Fri, 01 Feb 2019 16:40:28 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <154881379920.7794.15439486195773911279@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <154881379920.7794.15439486195773911279@ietfa.amsl.com> From: David Schinazi Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2019 09:40:17 +0900 Message-ID: To: Sean Turner Cc: secdir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-babel-dtls.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, Babel at IETF Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008f67190580de815e" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Secdir early review of draft-ietf-babel-dtls-03 X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2019 00:40:41 -0000 --0000000000008f67190580de815e Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Thanks for the review Sean! I've updated the doc with your comments: https://github.com/jech/babel-drafts/commit/e202f664712772a4db2bd88c5665ba3193cd4c99 Detailed responses inline. David On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 11:03 AM Sean Turner wrote: > Reviewer: Sean Turner > Review result: Has Nits > > Hi, > > David wanted to make it really easy on me and get as much early input as he > could get by sending a msg to the TLS list asking for comments [0]. > Version > -02 addressed those comments. > > I'm no babel expert, but I did take the time to read/skim the base protocol > document to get more familiar with it as well as re-read the babel-tls > draft. > The tl;dr here is that babel is multicast but DTLS is not so changes to > babel > are needed. > To clarify, the changes to make Babel work over unicast have all gone into the base spec: draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis > Here are my comments in no particular order. No show stoppers here. > > 0) Since DTLS is in the RFC Editor's Abbreviations List - I think you can > get > away with: Babel Routing Protocol over DTLS But, that's up to you. > I personally prefer spelling it out, but I don't feel too strongly about it. > 1) (IEGS food fight alert) I see that the updates header updates 6126bis. > Not > sure how this will fly in the face of the draft IESG Statement [1]. > Thanks for pointing this out. We'll follow any guidance the IESG gives us during their review. > 2) (This might just be document organization) The applicability section > kind of > jumped out at me because there's also an applicability draft. Further, it > and > 6126bis says the HMAC mechanism is preferred. I'd just drop the entire > section > ;) > The authors felt we should insist that HMAC is better suited for many deployments as it better fits with the traditional Babel multicast model. The applicability draft focuses on Babel itself. > 3) s2.1 - maybe add a pointer to the IANA considerations section. > Done 4) s2.1 - Because you're doing client authentication do you need say > anything > about the type of cert, whether certificate_authorities, > signature_algorithms_cert, signature_algorithms should be sent (for 1.3 > connections)? > We've had this conversation on the Babel mailing list, and we landed on having the babel-dtls draft not define any of these, punting that to the usage profiles drafts. For example, the Babel Homenet profile draft will define all of these. > 5) s4 - add that IANA is requested to point to this specification for the > reference. > Done 6) AppA - I think you might need to tweak the last sentence in light 1.3? > Unfortunately DTLS 1.3 hasn't been published yet, and I'd rather not make assumptions on what the RFC will say (even though we're pretty sure the handshake won't change between the current draft and RFC). If it gets published as RFC before this document does, I'll make these changes. Cheers, > spt > > [0] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/tIaK0rgm5zCVuYmLm5qsCIvKXKw > [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-1u_1-peHKAmUDuLyGAJYu0fPCE > > --0000000000008f67190580de815e Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks for the revi= ew Sean!

I've updated the doc with your commen= ts:

<= div>Detailed responses inline.

David

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019= at 11:03 AM Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.c= om> wrote:
draf= t-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis
=C2=A0
Here are my comments in no particular order.=C2=A0 No show stoppers here.
0) Since DTLS is in the RFC Editor's Abbreviations List - I think you c= an get
away with: Babel Routing Protocol over DTLS But, that's up to you.
<= /blockquote>

I personally prefer spelling it out, but I = don't feel too strongly about it.
=C2=A0
1) (IEGS food fight alert) I see that the updates header updates 6126bis.= =C2=A0 Not
sure how this will fly in the face of the draft IESG Statement [1].

Thanks for pointing this out. We'll follow= any guidance the IESG gives us
during their review.
= =C2=A0
2) (This might just be document organization) The applicability section kin= d of
jumped out at me because there's also an applicability draft.=C2=A0 Fur= ther, it and
6126bis says the HMAC mechanism is preferred.=C2=A0 I'd just drop the e= ntire section
;)

The authors felt we should insist th= at HMAC is better suited for many deployments
as it better fits w= ith the traditional Babel multicast model. The applicability draft
focuses on Babel itself.
=C2=A0
3) s2.1 - maybe add a pointer to the IANA considerations section.

Done

4) s2.1 - Because you're doing client authentication do you need say an= ything
about the type of cert, whether certificate_authorities,
signature_algorithms_cert, signature_algorithms should be sent (for 1.3
connections)?

We've had this conver= sation on the Babel mailing list, and we landed on having the
bab= el-dtls draft not define any of these, punting that to the usage profiles d= rafts.
For example, the Babel Homenet profile draft will define a= ll of these.
=C2=A0
5) s4 - add that IANA is requested to point to this specification for the reference.

Done=C2=A0

6) AppA - I think you might need to tweak the last sentence in light 1.3?

Unfortunately DTLS 1.3 hasn't been p= ublished yet, and I'd rather not make
assumptions on what the= RFC will say (even though we're pretty sure the
handshake wo= n't change between the current draft and RFC). If it gets
pub= lished as RFC before this document does, I'll make these changes.
=
=C2=A0

Cheers,
spt

[0] https://mailarchive.ietf.or= g/arch/msg/tls/tIaK0rgm5zCVuYmLm5qsCIvKXKw
[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.o= rg/arch/msg/ietf/-1u_1-peHKAmUDuLyGAJYu0fPCE

--0000000000008f67190580de815e-- From nobody Fri Feb 1 17:18:02 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC893131036; Fri, 1 Feb 2019 17:17:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 jY5Mhhsir55K; Fri, 1 Feb 2019 17:17:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 459DB131032; Fri, 1 Feb 2019 17:17:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:1]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/82085) with ESMTP id x121HnD6012907 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 2 Feb 2019 02:17:49 +0100 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay2/82085) with ESMTP id x121HosV013062; Sat, 2 Feb 2019 02:17:50 +0100 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80EDC2E1F8; Sat, 2 Feb 2019 02:17:54 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id JQeVhys0zzL5; Sat, 2 Feb 2019 02:17:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from pirx.irif.fr (unknown [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4860E2E1F5; Sat, 2 Feb 2019 02:17:52 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2019 02:17:52 +0100 Message-ID: <87imy3c7jz.wl-jch@irif.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: David Schinazi Cc: Sean Turner , secdir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-babel-dtls.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, Babel at IETF In-Reply-To: References: <154881379920.7794.15439486195773911279@ietfa.amsl.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]); Sat, 02 Feb 2019 02:17:49 +0100 (CET) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.141]); Sat, 02 Feb 2019 02:17:51 +0100 (CET) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 5C54EFBD.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-Miltered: at potemkin with ID 5C54EFBE.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5C54EFBD.000 from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/null/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5C54EFBE.000 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5C54EFBD.000 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5C54EFBE.000 on potemkin.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Secdir early review of draft-ietf-babel-dtls-03 X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2019 01:18:00 -0000 > 6) AppA - I think you might need to tweak the last sentence in light 1.3? > Unfortunately DTLS 1.3 hasn't been published yet, May I most humbly request an explanation? Is that about TLS False Start being made obsolete by TLS 1.3? (Note that I'm not particularly convinced about this paragraph, since I don't think that paying one extra RTT at neighbour acquisition is at all prohibitive.) -- Juliusz From nobody Fri Feb 1 17:24:26 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DAFC130EF5; Fri, 1 Feb 2019 17:24:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 BoW_5dq7JvqW; Fri, 1 Feb 2019 17:24:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pg1-x534.google.com (mail-pg1-x534.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::534]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A518130DC9; Fri, 1 Feb 2019 17:24:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pg1-x534.google.com with SMTP id n2so3749029pgm.3; Fri, 01 Feb 2019 17:24:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=F2nQtUYpicaP94GEXAOVE8GjcZev6wnmMH2jLA2hPzk=; b=RXJ2T1+Qn44lYKSRogl41bvRTJzL5x05QPe+Wm1TJd6WjKZq+e9XOWINzheyLjy0F1 kqe22SmRS1vR3+vBgQvmylsGx6kaNAjy8z13PIVcDm92/+6NUa/Knv8YrxDSsCA97fSV 2kVvu3z43wBi6FG0d3PU14NyynYODGASuzr45WzCqSu6EiSUghWsqQ8+frw+9O9alcXl sSy8QmN9Yni9wddNJxe2dZ32jq6K5r8/So7j8AKVWVwthGSdV0TV0wtnDAigDnLrO0Ug UVPYt8L4RRaLT8kIlMf7TBwSZp35an9k73zLLaNMOW4t6QNzDHmfI87PpLgT1yKeOqFf 9FOg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=F2nQtUYpicaP94GEXAOVE8GjcZev6wnmMH2jLA2hPzk=; b=rj1Yzpu3Xy7K5WtQFT+AL+X0Mg7gCUMgArDru1R53O3Y5WErHZM25CuyEaX9r2gpd4 HZn5SwLG4IHOGVEMqSYgENNlC8RjlnqC5SzBCYEB29JiteNlFUgEqT/vXHTkK4MisOAv iDm5CbIc2p2wmpeDT4nwKPBRmbDvIpjw4heCwSA+ocVRKrnD/sdMA9wdRDD8IKluDhBw HuvoN6itluXHz9mWnczoXwFUsb0gzF5uS6qEeVXHrM5ZHQ+Cai9x64j14aGGoJVlcBR1 zWhBlmxuJpmVaag7HfbxBqcbXd+gInA4jHcExP+u90VE7p+mpS3Aw3kFNQxVktPf5fBQ siQQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukckCMlddKd8ck4tJzufqB5EkkPSMlYlnSOiSfVIpaYhejXOrFE2 ssM+tRL7pjFWZy6CMTDnOyLSJ7Zw52UM8GVbKwg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN7Gfp4RRMHP4T2CW7z6+XbnQmwdkrzft7eZ7mejl69DfW1SlHCwX2NAi3aishpUtPlOThHZdsfA4VfPRMrVmdY= X-Received: by 2002:a63:7e1a:: with SMTP id z26mr36969896pgc.216.1549070661774; Fri, 01 Feb 2019 17:24:21 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <154881379920.7794.15439486195773911279@ietfa.amsl.com> <87imy3c7jz.wl-jch@irif.fr> In-Reply-To: <87imy3c7jz.wl-jch@irif.fr> From: David Schinazi Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2019 10:24:10 +0900 Message-ID: To: Juliusz Chroboczek Cc: Sean Turner , secdir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-babel-dtls.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, Babel at IETF Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008715df0580df1e2b" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Secdir early review of draft-ietf-babel-dtls-03 X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2019 01:24:25 -0000 --0000000000008715df0580df1e2b Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi Juliusz, TLS 1.3 changed the handshake, making false start irrelevant. In 1.3, the first flight of server-client packets contains the Finished message, so there is no opportunity to start early as there is in 1.2. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6347#section-4.2.4 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-dtls13-30#section-5.6 David On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 10:17 AM Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > > 6) AppA - I think you might need to tweak the last sentence in light > 1.3? > > > Unfortunately DTLS 1.3 hasn't been published yet, > > May I most humbly request an explanation? Is that about TLS False Start > being made obsolete by TLS 1.3? > > (Note that I'm not particularly convinced about this paragraph, since > I don't think that paying one extra RTT at neighbour acquisition is at all > prohibitive.) > > -- Juliusz > --0000000000008715df0580df1e2b Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Juliusz,

TLS 1.3 changed the handshake, making false start irrelevant.
<= div>In 1.3, the first flight of server-client packets contains the Finished= message,
so there is no opportunity to start early as there is i= n 1.2.


David

On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 10:17 AM Juli= usz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> wrote= :
>=C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A06) AppA - I think you might need to tweak the last sentence in li= ght 1.3?

> Unfortunately DTLS 1.3 hasn't been published yet,

May I most humbly request an explanation?=C2=A0 Is that about TLS False Sta= rt
being made obsolete by TLS 1.3?

(Note that I'm not particularly convinced about this paragraph, since I don't think that paying one extra RTT at neighbour acquisition is at = all
prohibitive.)

-- Juliusz
--0000000000008715df0580df1e2b-- From nobody Wed Feb 6 13:53:40 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 963BE130ECD; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 13:53:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.75 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 QgycOMS8T2Zu; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 13:53:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ot1-x334.google.com (mail-ot1-x334.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::334]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A22D412D4F3; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 13:53:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ot1-x334.google.com with SMTP id v23so14716746otk.9; Wed, 06 Feb 2019 13:53:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=aL3e9FlL4g1tQTHJ8bXBoWVMpBBe52/FdYjb6XiJpSU=; b=lw9wQHo/PVmPBUwBToZm0PgoMiTvsVEB2gbQ4T0FM8InRv3O/E5t+9uH4jPL68+xsk stet0LaxJBtFB6VdJh855nl3LT3jFUr8m3AAX8JvuoaAG7OkPv2Jl9+6Re/KcD4ojyaC PXFwYEUG9ScDfI8YwuJbsgnGpGNnu3AoVeOwHD+O5kzKbfxFc2vRP95uNrQSgEjiI/Mr jI4gk2p3AKurfekkaYMZ9RR7WlKcORthshDVTL6DlJ0Lytl4bdUdEw3O9CMBwxnHUug7 fJK9jIj5LF7T9+isIuYrB3VpciGGZq7ydjnFHTFyuF8y5Fw5g/YSPEvoibB/Uh/kRLlT LJNQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=aL3e9FlL4g1tQTHJ8bXBoWVMpBBe52/FdYjb6XiJpSU=; b=dKBcvzc7m+Yl0ttVbDH9nPLAIyvna2eYRacBZ5gs5fEAYBLLGa8Y0J+9G0bdUSv6Cb a0P7l8hw04jbMXFo1U3fa7djBOMF6Ydnq5kUfbQJ172+DLdknJ2YNLMhgdu9021HdQmE qmPvNzLAxyTVQAxC+3Le9bCsNoqlan7KFXI+5ryIM0VP6grUvJrCBFIqdsTO1bbLFjfc Uh72g4FUWog7wshY2WtRd+LDW98yqdW0EX+bzincS3/bYWMxlmXBdZprzvj8T5a4gvG8 bYVH/FYosqLc4VzUx5kDdkrZogzT526Wk59qZrVOb0UEZ0F1N42/wumvsX6R6FpW11gP Z7Xw== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuaN/Nm5bWYL2lIUUVQ9ipS6eovYLjBOgiOW5LKp+Bo9RjjECTLr Z+9z3mDR83/8SOgNPPoCtNfsWrsD2N2TdhbnOOU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IZE1zeKkDDJ5BhPmU4dZh9dFTRG/m9WdNTeQP0UpD21mqRO5fDrWKhhwZZC2ZVzU3uKDxRVFPefIXjKD03ZxHE= X-Received: by 2002:a54:4e95:: with SMTP id c21mr752379oiy.118.1549490008712; Wed, 06 Feb 2019 13:53:28 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <154881379920.7794.15439486195773911279@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: From: Donald Eastlake Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 16:53:16 -0500 Message-ID: To: David Schinazi Cc: Sean Turner , secdir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-babel-dtls.all@ietf.org, IETF Discussion , Babel at IETF Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Secdir early review of draft-ietf-babel-dtls-03 X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2019 21:53:32 -0000 Hi, See below. On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 7:40 PM David Schinazi wrote: > > Thanks for the review Sean! > > I've updated the doc with your comments: > https://github.com/jech/babel-drafts/commit/e202f664712772a4db2bd88c5665ba3193cd4c99 > > Detailed responses inline. > > David > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 11:03 AM Sean Turner wrote: >> >> Reviewer: Sean Turner >> Review result: Has Nits >> >> Hi, >> >> David wanted to make it really easy on me and get as much early input as he >> could get by sending a msg to the TLS list asking for comments [0]. Version >> -02 addressed those comments. >> >> I'm no babel expert, but I did take the time to read/skim the base protocol >> document to get more familiar with it as well as re-read the babel-tls draft. >> The tl;dr here is that babel is multicast but DTLS is not so changes to babel >> are needed. > > To clarify, the changes to make Babel work over unicast have all gone into > the base spec: draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis > >> Here are my comments in no particular order. No show stoppers here. >> >> 0) Since DTLS is in the RFC Editor's Abbreviations List - I think you can get >> away with: Babel Routing Protocol over DTLS But, that's up to you. > > I personally prefer spelling it out, but I don't feel too strongly about it. While my feeling is not that strong, I also favor spelling it out. >> 1) (IEGS food fight alert) I see that the updates header updates 6126bis. Not >> sure how this will fly in the face of the draft IESG Statement [1]. > > Thanks for pointing this out. We'll follow any guidance the IESG gives us > during their review. I think this draft should not say that it updates 6126bis. However, I am of that opinion not because of IESG policy but because 6126bis normatively references this draft; therefore, readers of 6261bis will be automatically directed to the RFC this draft become when published. >> 2) (This might just be document organization) The applicability section kind of >> jumped out at me because there's also an applicability draft. Further, it and >> 6126bis says the HMAC mechanism is preferred. I'd just drop the entire section >> ;) > > The authors felt we should insist that HMAC is better suited for many deployments > as it better fits with the traditional Babel multicast model. The applicability draft > focuses on Babel itself. > >> 3) s2.1 - maybe add a pointer to the IANA considerations section. > > Done > >> 4) s2.1 - Because you're doing client authentication do you need say anything >> about the type of cert, whether certificate_authorities, >> signature_algorithms_cert, signature_algorithms should be sent (for 1.3 >> connections)? > > We've had this conversation on the Babel mailing list, and we landed on having the > babel-dtls draft not define any of these, punting that to the usage profiles drafts. > For example, the Babel Homenet profile draft will define all of these. > >> 5) s4 - add that IANA is requested to point to this specification for the >> reference. > > Done > >> 6) AppA - I think you might need to tweak the last sentence in light 1.3? > > Unfortunately DTLS 1.3 hasn't been published yet, and I'd rather not make > assumptions on what the RFC will say (even though we're pretty sure the > handshake won't change between the current draft and RFC). If it gets > published as RFC before this document does, I'll make these changes. Given the advanced state of the DTLS 1.3 draft in the IETF process, I suggest consideration be given to referencing that draft rather than RFC 6347 and making corresponding minor changes in this draft... Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 1424 Pro Shop Court, Davenport, FL 33896 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com >> Cheers, >> spt >> >> [0] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/tIaK0rgm5zCVuYmLm5qsCIvKXKw >> [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-1u_1-peHKAmUDuLyGAJYu0fPCE From nobody Wed Feb 6 14:38:36 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2560130EE0; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 14:38:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.75 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 dBgqNSTveQLb; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 14:38:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ot1-x331.google.com (mail-ot1-x331.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::331]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5CB2130E25; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 14:38:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ot1-x331.google.com with SMTP id u16so14934793otk.8; Wed, 06 Feb 2019 14:38:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=8oYwQuM+kXFtvHsiwOjJdSTQOC3mMlSoHKkXjeUGa98=; b=k5Hliswxsp13soseh5XsjBuMYzneFcY0rM3finHq1MyZgfbUMc2cRnOKU6mo5088pa FcPitOYff6XAlwvKS1QswfI3JfT8FuBgw56a+EdbRdZhtqQvC5AY+Xh1UK3/KRJQIgWH NjWNugHRXy1ppCvv1LL20GfEIcR7wnI8NxMMjaU/yLnIEiPxrrgE8FFigA9UA+Bg9q8H sWTIWd1S09awMacXlquRGqRvMhkAXvTMqZ+68t1m+qbnCTIiJbO0oSLHV/WtxBMNlyyo Dc3ktFKV3MGvyOIwKXYH8obWnatsi3dWDb27ibPDIJs4tHLzTiCHZpLnpedqRWQYCESQ Gn2g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=8oYwQuM+kXFtvHsiwOjJdSTQOC3mMlSoHKkXjeUGa98=; b=U/SDNVyyb3wpeh5gKbDEstCgobQNxjz19rf/e2i39g6OAlddPmMzmxf4vKYntjctXI azoo5zBU6Gf6ibqpkbVkoMPjvojSe9ydOoPFbaCXZaaas0xkD1c2KvwzgglV+R87fD+g ZVLGaFbnJQ1MC7F6kQ01xoWfe30fw0FIEeOEE5FXPnk32CbgN8LSmgTEK412XfCiPbDK 2/WIx6pVwlVyuGvytizcfkWvZ8SuZFICcuUwX9qbERYYKjmHPl8vvYuQiUeCT+MQmW5o LNw6NZ5Qaih71YM3BZUgt/3a3Zy1kyzynBwaQvH7VmFDx2ZgtnigT7+D1idfeqOzAKhA h3Cg== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAua3yE7blzdKeIZ6Xlb30x6UbhbnWhKB7qLOI5YwXo1nR9bnt4FZ pEdoAaAuVRChjo8nRpCG7OiDbl8SUHSUj3zFV399Bw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IbXbTveGbnyDY5bz30c5xesVNK6u2T4AM3+IH1zjo06G/swMzG5e4z/0Om8eavEKfhZBKjm244/1KVuG8UXhKE= X-Received: by 2002:aca:c43:: with SMTP id i3mr851993oiy.157.1549492712845; Wed, 06 Feb 2019 14:38:32 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Donald Eastlake Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 17:38:20 -0500 Message-ID: To: Babel at IETF Cc: babel-chairs Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Archived-At: Subject: [babel] Consensus for draft-ietf-babel-dtls X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2019 22:38:35 -0000 This message concludes the WG Last Call for draft-ietf-babel-dtls-03. There is WG consensus for the publication of this draft and publication will be requested after a revised version is posted. Thanks, Donald and Russ =============================== From nobody Wed Feb 6 15:29:11 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58B9A130F50 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 15:29:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sn3rd.com 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 OUQpd3KsTBtR for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 15:29:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qk1-x72c.google.com (mail-qk1-x72c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D5AD130E25 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 15:29:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qk1-x72c.google.com with SMTP id a15so5448440qkc.1 for ; Wed, 06 Feb 2019 15:29:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sn3rd.com; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=3NBhWI59asL2Hd+Alt0WOXqD8e6ROWqoAvsKq/AXUZA=; b=m+rgTTT+zzgb5rGh+RVAY6UE/YbMoGyMLW9HxAy2BlJWYpL8xy/0K9e3EgNhzmEz9c 61aHCohdRDztUJZZhr2MvFIg+Kt/pRZHILoNENOGIux6MCyh3jOoNwVoFPvFq6qbcBHp pmJDisjD+LhvcoYjU4rW64bZPnoWXTOkEhoo8= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=3NBhWI59asL2Hd+Alt0WOXqD8e6ROWqoAvsKq/AXUZA=; b=f8VFzlncYSM5iNrWTRzXlIfpY5QtyLJ0k6VCm9HHCqfKWfsYvMT7HUaI//jsF9/f8T lKD829fozcdPEZCddw7igPgyo0MkhcE3H+3YIY5rR8+MpgSnLtjMKuakRyIhdt4bajDf VoYxVdi2yYnkjinUKqyG6I7CC0sG4OLtX2tTUcNyAWlYzo/xIaPfKyb8fZmCBrdPqkml jc+5LUOMGOUj4NLODeh0LA00glSEWOmP5Vms77AyahBgc8cDYLOytD0ZawoD6CDUh57N wEd40ImsMt67mEyQpDhi9ck/km7kBfIvs37sGeT07FHuPpPyxL3np8S+7iwNtnXdDMzW aUOg== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuZCTsARUxzN8nO5WZUXRx2WmA9Al63pWnt+TjWAR9y3WS0IqoXi tuNQzWcPkQxX3CZdu9W/D6aq4Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3Ib9/csqKMBd+gQW9iYuALC43Wo50HnRk+cOJZo/+UJrbQRhFAtq+Q5MRUuFdHb3nQ4AIz7JZw== X-Received: by 2002:ae9:d8c2:: with SMTP id u185mr9038663qkf.107.1549495745755; Wed, 06 Feb 2019 15:29:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.16.0.18] ([96.231.217.246]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m124sm5363696qkc.16.2019.02.06.15.29.03 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 06 Feb 2019 15:29:04 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\)) From: Sean Turner In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 18:29:02 -0500 Cc: secdir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-babel-dtls.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, Babel at IETF Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <06C98B7B-4D3A-4DF6-AE9F-E82C7B8BF439@sn3rd.com> References: <154881379920.7794.15439486195773911279@ietfa.amsl.com> To: David Schinazi X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Secdir early review of draft-ietf-babel-dtls-03 X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2019 23:29:09 -0000 David, Thanks for following up. I am personally happy with your suggested = resolutions. spt > On Feb 1, 2019, at 19:40, David Schinazi = wrote: >=20 > Thanks for the review Sean! >=20 > I've updated the doc with your comments: > = https://github.com/jech/babel-drafts/commit/e202f664712772a4db2bd88c5665ba= 3193cd4c99 >=20 > Detailed responses inline. >=20 > David >=20 >=20 > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 11:03 AM Sean Turner wrote: > Reviewer: Sean Turner > Review result: Has Nits >=20 > Hi, >=20 > David wanted to make it really easy on me and get as much early input = as he > could get by sending a msg to the TLS list asking for comments [0]. = Version > -02 addressed those comments. >=20 > I'm no babel expert, but I did take the time to read/skim the base = protocol > document to get more familiar with it as well as re-read the babel-tls = draft.=20 > The tl;dr here is that babel is multicast but DTLS is not so changes = to babel > are needed. >=20 > To clarify, the changes to make Babel work over unicast have all gone = into > the base spec: draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis > =20 > Here are my comments in no particular order. No show stoppers here. >=20 > 0) Since DTLS is in the RFC Editor's Abbreviations List - I think you = can get > away with: Babel Routing Protocol over DTLS But, that's up to you. >=20 > I personally prefer spelling it out, but I don't feel too strongly = about it. > =20 > 1) (IEGS food fight alert) I see that the updates header updates = 6126bis. Not > sure how this will fly in the face of the draft IESG Statement [1]. >=20 > Thanks for pointing this out. We'll follow any guidance the IESG gives = us > during their review. > =20 > 2) (This might just be document organization) The applicability = section kind of > jumped out at me because there's also an applicability draft. = Further, it and > 6126bis says the HMAC mechanism is preferred. I'd just drop the = entire section > ;) >=20 > The authors felt we should insist that HMAC is better suited for many = deployments > as it better fits with the traditional Babel multicast model. The = applicability draft > focuses on Babel itself. > =20 > 3) s2.1 - maybe add a pointer to the IANA considerations section. >=20 > Done >=20 > 4) s2.1 - Because you're doing client authentication do you need say = anything > about the type of cert, whether certificate_authorities, > signature_algorithms_cert, signature_algorithms should be sent (for = 1.3 > connections)? >=20 > We've had this conversation on the Babel mailing list, and we landed = on having the > babel-dtls draft not define any of these, punting that to the usage = profiles drafts. > For example, the Babel Homenet profile draft will define all of these. > =20 > 5) s4 - add that IANA is requested to point to this specification for = the > reference. >=20 > Done=20 >=20 > 6) AppA - I think you might need to tweak the last sentence in light = 1.3? >=20 > Unfortunately DTLS 1.3 hasn't been published yet, and I'd rather not = make > assumptions on what the RFC will say (even though we're pretty sure = the > handshake won't change between the current draft and RFC). If it gets > published as RFC before this document does, I'll make these changes. > =20 >=20 > Cheers, > spt >=20 > [0] = https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/tIaK0rgm5zCVuYmLm5qsCIvKXKw > [1] = https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-1u_1-peHKAmUDuLyGAJYu0fPCE >=20 From nobody Wed Feb 6 15:54:02 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF907130F82; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 15:53:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 FBTAFQUsOtbY; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 15:53:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pg1-x531.google.com (mail-pg1-x531.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::531]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1617130F9D; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 15:53:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pg1-x531.google.com with SMTP id d9so3681316pgl.1; Wed, 06 Feb 2019 15:53:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=6gDTJWv0omRsc/IaSiKe8g8XyzDkn/QiKDSa+Rl0bIA=; b=kaYNZFiVPIQKLF+UpeW2VAuTAnMzNmL/ONwtvI+qdcxmyKZjVNpShjKUpz5bWf70Cb ftZJ16F7tORcL/a+B5u6LzytXQobWxbT/RbJ8z5bzUdpErTe5MkxQrZqNpmgqg4eSgv+ +tIfZeOGR04E8qQ68j9aEilOXpyhl2fqQB9N2dR5AAVXJmgZR0OBy0pyeQuJrNzfW8hq xjRxkyjeBwAF+prFfd5VtOn/wp5UwTeQd4yp2OCIS5oMwaw02zaKs0XMevL1ADbBIt/N O/0fDFoStk3GXk05CNBxYnWJDfY3geVlyj/VSeSGW1Fw1sjDaj2WUNLcxa/OLk8aae5J cjIQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=6gDTJWv0omRsc/IaSiKe8g8XyzDkn/QiKDSa+Rl0bIA=; b=hlcElXh0L3RG27CEOeC58LD/x8Hh9k1D7NP7J8X1wLDBtjF2jlJTE3Y47OkUfWLjaX 5o75Tw8Yz22yhlg0b5oLZ+HAI9SoJoEWfG+IrKwHZqBvgIEhzU44MhNF/rC+fbZBWvU8 h0VdMcHN8xppNJGXToRoL14tv8agEyR3xAH5LJvI14OZ934G2fofixLft9SWcA67w7TA jQdwsJNfe1bz2yMk8PkFjTQxUfgMigLiZDHoXsIFXh0UiCHz2897g71H/PIwuXKDBuag 1EQ1W/hKwKs6HZkydEzG08BL6D0aJ/jUhqE2iOAiyXaPrzhagnFkcma3NgGqaSaleLZd SR+A== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuY4u8iwRfmElyYI4J+PO9Pzv1x7w6Rb9OIvrmsvE/F2ePk71LDz L3xWzO7xFrL0bqq6wkMYNgfhYDYPllgZookFgAE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IbRQYHZ9yFWvs6+ES3UVuC/wdgRS/Ek5utYAy7RGU3w/wbNcqXN7NZeQNKR/xH+7bB6/AHDv3PYWDeg+LDqFw0= X-Received: by 2002:a62:6ec8:: with SMTP id j191mr13245398pfc.198.1549497231149; Wed, 06 Feb 2019 15:53:51 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <154881379920.7794.15439486195773911279@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: From: David Schinazi Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 15:53:39 -0800 Message-ID: To: Donald Eastlake Cc: Sean Turner , secdir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-babel-dtls.all@ietf.org, IETF Discussion , Babel at IETF Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000b100c05814270a8" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Secdir early review of draft-ietf-babel-dtls-03 X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2019 23:54:00 -0000 --0000000000000b100c05814270a8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Thanks Donald and Sean. On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 1:53 PM Donald Eastlake wrote: > Given the advanced state of the DTLS 1.3 draft in the IETF process, I > suggest consideration be given to referencing that draft rather than > RFC 6347 and making corresponding minor changes in this draft... > I'd rather not create a blocking relationship at this point in time. I personally commit that when babel-dtls makes it to AUTH48, if DTLS 1.3 is published then I'll make the changes to babel-dtls to reference it. Thanks, David --0000000000000b100c05814270a8 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks Donald and Sean.

On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 1:53 PM Donald E= astlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> wr= ote:
Given the advanced state of the DTLS 1.3 draft in the IETF process, I
suggest consideration be given to referencing that draft rather than
RFC 6347 and making corresponding minor changes in this draft...

I'd rather not create a blocking relationship= at this point in time.
I personally commit that when babel-dtls = makes it to AUTH48, if DTLS 1.3 is
published then I'll make t= he changes to babel-dtls to reference it.

Thanks,<= /div>
David
--0000000000000b100c05814270a8-- From nobody Wed Feb 6 15:58:25 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietf.org Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79B2912008A; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 15:58:24 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Cc: babel@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.91.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Reply-To: babel@ietf.org Message-ID: <154949750443.337.15346731547037518787@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2019 15:58:24 -0800 Archived-At: Subject: [babel] I-D Action: draft-ietf-babel-dtls-04.txt X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2019 23:58:25 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Babel routing protocol WG of the IETF. Title : Babel Routing Protocol over Datagram Transport Layer Security Authors : Antonin Decimo David Schinazi Juliusz Chroboczek Filename : draft-ietf-babel-dtls-04.txt Pages : 9 Date : 2019-02-06 Abstract: The Babel Routing Protocol does not contain any means to authenticate neighbours or protect messages sent between them. This documents specifies a mechanism to ensure these properties, using Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS). This document updates RFC 6126bis. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-babel-dtls/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-babel-dtls-04 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-babel-dtls-04 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-babel-dtls-04 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Wed Feb 6 16:01:39 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE3C612D4F3; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 16:01:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 dGCzLMY47QUG; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 16:01:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pg1-x52d.google.com (mail-pg1-x52d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B5B812894E; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 16:01:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pg1-x52d.google.com with SMTP id g189so3677924pgc.5; Wed, 06 Feb 2019 16:01:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Cp5LF3UJw1EBYYDQPUC78P3GhBTlSU/Gr0d49JPEBiU=; b=C9mDAXckEzFcpdiXgowwZQBgsb7xxaoMBgcnINudm6ngCwEn6s69ga1EopShRKt1tE 63X1bTAEouhAEaRv30fQpJNGV9AyEpjN+m8HnV6j/O6sTXXifXHt3lA7FFrHNMBqf7t6 EbRosR1IUUOXSCV0ywHgXf0vRxJdIIj+HCH8LqdL3FBpdAHS0kGdWzkcGMkDuksJOrnA L7x+pBw3qFNcD0RTersZTPXEsOPxn673vgtiRPpv2oZl1XLuwuGdGkpGHIwhvyoJCIwp 72FNmRgV+g7ZMN0SxUCseHAuVEoAIaM8AJ7h1ZGCSZMGWYJZNIo0KudV62jDWT6TuimT lu5Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Cp5LF3UJw1EBYYDQPUC78P3GhBTlSU/Gr0d49JPEBiU=; b=ZS0ktqWYVE+xu5R3MPft3WgG6/ksjbsDeJ4WYg3PGEe/H64JI/oZTPwShesFcHfrRp kj3udPO2cgpglTql0Y5jEM+k546IlXnRS31jAC4+hdlHR+M+/YjmASJWmY6CkWZnI80C CtTdKvxgH1V2U/QGpkQLkKdhn/Nh5Fo+hWRztApeqfZlbBqRzGH2OzlPUYvKXuHJTJXm 8WXM6Mb9dQLuJSH0tczEZ+8sZKw+4fNd2FLdseHrbFKRYQGhwpqSKiArMvMHwnbN+lWA z9GhzgQnG0kViqBGmmehBk3Cp/pntD2AfjI/biM2S9VhpWsAPPGJK3G8hFQenKL6Ee/V WTKw== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuZA1t8yzLNQ9CDYFNK3W+S6zRS6t1ef6wKqncPvceppQP6CrvRx aew/pL11EUL2TmLFvUQiDOFVHigkvOpRoVCncrU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IZrj4FUlUyTSKy2uCq/7UJa/oU4MT84r2kzaTbjlBdGRAhwmCBWj+TD2eKNkQ3jqGzv/tkB/3QIYvCJenrLCEg= X-Received: by 2002:a62:1e87:: with SMTP id e129mr13060481pfe.221.1549497695709; Wed, 06 Feb 2019 16:01:35 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: David Schinazi Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 16:01:24 -0800 Message-ID: To: Donald Eastlake Cc: Babel at IETF , babel-chairs Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bbad0b0581428bcc" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Consensus for draft-ietf-babel-dtls X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2019 00:01:38 -0000 --000000000000bbad0b0581428bcc Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Thank you, Donald. We've submitted -04 with the discussed revisions: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-babel-dtls-04 Diff available here: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-babel-dtls-04 Thanks, David On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 2:38 PM Donald Eastlake wrote: > This message concludes the WG Last Call for draft-ietf-babel-dtls-03. > There is WG consensus for the publication of this draft and > publication will be requested after a revised version is posted. > > Thanks, > Donald and Russ > =============================== > > _______________________________________________ > babel mailing list > babel@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel > --000000000000bbad0b0581428bcc Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thank you, Donald.

We&= #39;ve submitted -04 with the discussed revisions:

On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 2:38 PM Donal= d Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>= wrote:
This mes= sage concludes the WG Last Call for draft-ietf-babel-dtls-03.
There is WG consensus for the publication of this draft and
publication will be requested after a revised version is posted.

Thanks,
Donald and Russ
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

_______________________________________________
babel mailing list
babel@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel
--000000000000bbad0b0581428bcc-- From nobody Fri Feb 8 15:55:48 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietf.org Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 388CD130EBE; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 15:55:41 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Donald Eastlake To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.91.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Cc: babel-chairs@ietf.org, d3e3e3@gmail.com, iesg-secretary@ietf.org, Donald Eastlake , babel@ietf.org Message-ID: <154967014122.31088.11387137775191099453.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2019 15:55:41 -0800 Archived-At: Subject: [babel] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-babel-dtls-04 X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2019 23:55:42 -0000 Donald Eastlake has requested publication of draft-ietf-babel-dtls-04 as Proposed Standard on behalf of the BABEL working group. Please verify the document's state at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-babel-dtls/ From nobody Tue Feb 12 22:00:27 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42958131031; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 22:00:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.75 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 rr_0Fzc5DAl0; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 22:00:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-it1-x12a.google.com (mail-it1-x12a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E8C99130F30; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 22:00:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-it1-x12a.google.com with SMTP id h6so1692192itl.1; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 22:00:24 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=H2gyPx7amDa4IgdCXniNMO04Xp8EUFvopnAwPJvTwDQ=; b=tqTkWklmEYUUQ8tfI2Ky3WzTgxStLfWYhbpSN2OXLlEou1hmjeMnv4X1FzrZFftGoJ H2+KAXD6saNvqJIrkVmF+QQ/M3WZDEPSh2rYEudFJ3qxoOQjIEF5V7f8CtItwP0hfdQk 7+tMsBPThJh7jLrSpTziMF5jL/W44ljfWw9PU4TeqTz0YsoNbrmxsuqohTvtO2URRhX+ 3Ek0zGlZ8smvfmkW/M22lV97tDrne8oLtiJ8C+hjcoFzueVOOHLjYaS1oZc4wBAeu7BR TSxldkdbha3/nAaKlpyMAvUTIvBFiOu0NZDKvie/PwIF4E1NkcNUz5KSSfMh5Pb8shWm XP2Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=H2gyPx7amDa4IgdCXniNMO04Xp8EUFvopnAwPJvTwDQ=; b=LjG/ln000caTXwjpBdH5R+YcjIjIBWEUMw3hT4uhf4vApeogOiW4GVI3/QWS92EBnM Vl39vwhQYMa3QGORWBEJTZAsCgOW4APHFlEffY0Msp6JDsl45zugProkZ9TM4i3LC5lO +MrNrs4f6pjYY5e8fGawJ4oaoIm6NX3AkZEVUykLDWxPosLI9bTd1QE01rbvoilk10y5 k017bZ5HoMOqh8xv7TihfcoWRXT/oyNoHTb+2opUhYK8W0/mrD2wp2BjvJg2pRFVRAll 4GX5i9+7yB28DbCJbwvV50JZFBzi1ieIRE973VUuIW2ik0wdnf1THFyPlVs0biqr6/bk EOwA== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuaSt+FDiLnAsPk53lMSc2+q6YginaMx0B9Mqgqzp2IPwoisSamq RnsJBFh2crWKy0UaobbmhVf7z4Cc/28uHDmOhl0vLw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IbWIyRAIj4SWOG+WqvIryh+EbC90oD6mod0JVNpGKUkmf0jj18bIPvPdkjRgOJ1PsO2MLXNbm1CZY4RvyeWSF8= X-Received: by 2002:a24:280a:: with SMTP id h10mr1217132ith.103.1550037623938; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 22:00:23 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Donald Eastlake Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 01:00:13 -0500 Message-ID: To: Babel at IETF Cc: babel-chairs Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Archived-At: Subject: [babel] An Implementation Policy for the Babel WG X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 06:00:26 -0000 The Routing ADs have recently decided that Working Groups in the Routing Area should have a policy on how much implementation is required for protocol documents. For example, you could require 2 independent interoperable implementation or 1 implementation or whatever. It is even permissible for the policy to be that it will be decided on a case-by-case basis. But whatever it is, they would like it to be stated in advance. So, it would be good to have such a policy for the Babel WG. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 1424 Pro Shop Court, Davenport, FL 33896 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com From nobody Wed Feb 13 02:36:58 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CC19131052; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 02:36:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=toke.dk 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 PQKxq4y0Vp29; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 02:36:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [52.28.52.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87C7713103A; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 02:36:44 -0800 (PST) From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1550054202; bh=Cv+TNt2ZGHgr3vWCTeI7D1tMxSJl8rrHcdWQotWD9KE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=AwwWp3r+P3C8mSV1YT/G9IsQiCPD0Wn0ukhxRZgf12J4kcNGOO3qsaKoeCI04wn9G 1Cct5KlJ/f3Ue6h/TeOqYlkoskKSlxlWl6xRqP1FOBErKtCdHn0y5HDNel/QREBYbH tWo85EL6S+fMT9DqvtKSfxiqNdeHVk4lNLTONd6aUQj9+1Qv4OU8hi3bBOW2OPwFBa uHo/EtlmVwP/BOLxtiSz0S3LxcCxh63an+u7q4zGM+Yd9hCyO7QBc43rEJwrYrz/A6 6ilZ6Yikr5t3G/SqZFFMBtH6p7tNVrhI9GEedcBarV71/k+hDM34ZqFraM5xmipm/B 3Lwo4qQBJ797Q== To: Donald Eastlake , Babel at IETF Cc: babel-chairs In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 11:36:41 +0100 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <87r2ccm0ue.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] An Implementation Policy for the Babel WG X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 10:36:57 -0000 Donald Eastlake writes: > The Routing ADs have recently decided that Working Groups in the > Routing Area should have a policy on how much implementation is > required for protocol documents. That's an excellent initiative! > For example, you could require 2 independent interoperable > implementation or 1 implementation or whatever. It is even permissible > for the policy to be that it will be decided on a case-by-case basis. > But whatever it is, they would like it to be stated in advance. > > So, it would be good to have such a policy for the Babel WG. Don't we already basically have a policy of two independent implementation for everything we do? -Toke From nobody Wed Feb 13 02:40:40 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E825412894E; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 02:40:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kapsi.fi 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 6s8qCdoT3Y0z; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 02:40:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.kapsi.fi (mail.kapsi.fi [IPv6:2001:67c:1be8::25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17BFF1274D0; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 02:40:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kapsi.fi; s=20161220; h=To:References:Message-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date: In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID :Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe :List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=109LowbwEklT1P+1I/ogVWLdofK391xR7ljQjO4Gvys=; b=z2erPR9xBKz8KXcVDmd/Ylg5uH bp9yNHk285IZfObeSq6zc7wZIKXNEZCk9TB03p5hapveaGMNT/qL+DIZ3/iR6bTyMQF4tZqAKkfVd kTn3Dn+6Ra9vsWbHDnOuv8PrEYU02xBDKVftl++RsXh5O35Jguph/12e9Xaf7h3NKrwFtpiOFEjMW nN7Umpvua99RzVZX84ljnUvI0HFOvVtvs+sAe7ZYTnt/uQ9jOVLHZf83/FrypYlcqfCNuDi7OAznK 3NS9cUtwS28cfPoJcspDuZg+1P7NmMPtqjAc8Eph5l3aga3qHTzctFZaqBFWDrrYhp+GflppoP+ps X704e1AQ==; Received: from 91-155-69-202.elisa-laajakaista.fi ([91.155.69.202] helo=himawari.lan) by mail.kapsi.fi with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gtrxx-0007oI-Kw; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 12:40:33 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\)) From: Markus Stenberg In-Reply-To: <87r2ccm0ue.fsf@toke.dk> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 12:40:32 +0200 Cc: Donald Eastlake , Babel at IETF , babel-chairs Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <811C0085-9723-4B00-BF59-88ACAEB585F1@iki.fi> References: <87r2ccm0ue.fsf@toke.dk> To: =?utf-8?Q?Toke_H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 91.155.69.202 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: markus.stenberg@iki.fi X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on mail.kapsi.fi); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] An Implementation Policy for the Babel WG X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 10:40:39 -0000 > On 13.02.2019, at 12.36, Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen = wrote: > Donald Eastlake writes: >> For example, you could require 2 independent interoperable >> implementation or 1 implementation or whatever. It is even = permissible >> for the policy to be that it will be decided on a case-by-case basis. >> But whatever it is, they would like it to be stated in advance. >>=20 >> So, it would be good to have such a policy for the Babel WG. > Don't we already basically have a policy of two independent > implementation for everything we do? Almost. I don't think DTLS has two for example though. I support two independent implementation as a sensible default though. -Markus= From nobody Wed Feb 13 02:46:32 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EF9B128B01; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 02:46:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=toke.dk 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 WCI0t3Xw25r7; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 02:46:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [IPv6:2a00:7660:6da:2001::664]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E70B12D84D; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 02:46:28 -0800 (PST) From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1550054784; bh=Zjz+hoeeqQQho+CiqMOvkswfYjrLi36+P2v9BgpcTpU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=HmTlBrMPUX4i61osbtzdXeooNewGxXXCb3H3u0nkATzPkhY/tC4rwQhVI9mBNtQMX nj0Rr/LYe1HDH59Jm3UJQ49antPVu8F/KafU1KxpmTyc01aKt6JbBPf9SYDB3czncq v3AsHQThuIDk3nivG/xWrpzUtlFmFNDeE45Cn9EiYuus5GnbVeT+TmjMIYoo+01aGa LE7yupZG2iCJfjdtqyMtYRht37rd+I2Lp5whdhMzfPjgFD7UkePUEQpEhxhslrWL1i YymdshIfjB20oipsCHYMaG0e8Mv4nuDvuNwYXklXziuIxUnJMhbYjUoiI8HSXtLPny ClZoN4H/XIUgA== To: Markus Stenberg Cc: Donald Eastlake , babel-chairs , Babel at IETF In-Reply-To: <811C0085-9723-4B00-BF59-88ACAEB585F1@iki.fi> References: <87r2ccm0ue.fsf@toke.dk> <811C0085-9723-4B00-BF59-88ACAEB585F1@iki.fi> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 11:46:24 +0100 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <87o97gm0e7.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] An Implementation Policy for the Babel WG X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 10:46:31 -0000 Markus Stenberg writes: >> On 13.02.2019, at 12.36, Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen = wrote: >> Donald Eastlake writes: >>> For example, you could require 2 independent interoperable >>> implementation or 1 implementation or whatever. It is even permissible >>> for the policy to be that it will be decided on a case-by-case basis. >>> But whatever it is, they would like it to be stated in advance. >>>=20 >>> So, it would be good to have such a policy for the Babel WG. >> Don't we already basically have a policy of two independent >> implementation for everything we do? > > Almost. I don't think DTLS has two for example though. Not publicly available, no. But pretty sure Juliusz and David originally did two implementations? One of them just ended up stranded inside the big donut... -Toke From nobody Wed Feb 13 04:45:53 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0B87128CE4; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 04:45:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 2hwjQhhFoXOw; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 04:45:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C498128CB7; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 04:45:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:1]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/82085) with ESMTP id x1DCjfvm031527 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 13 Feb 2019 13:45:41 +0100 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay2/82085) with ESMTP id x1DCjh6t016023; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 13:45:43 +0100 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 816A9617ED; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 13:45:46 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id vok0C6Ry3LXJ; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 13:45:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from pirx.irif.fr (unknown [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B5974617EB; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 13:45:43 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 13:45:43 +0100 Message-ID: <87wom3g8lk.wl-jch@irif.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: Donald Eastlake Cc: Babel at IETF , babel-chairs In-Reply-To: References: User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]); Wed, 13 Feb 2019 13:45:41 +0100 (CET) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.141]); Wed, 13 Feb 2019 13:45:43 +0100 (CET) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 5C641175.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-Miltered: at potemkin with ID 5C641177.002 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5C641175.001 from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/null/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5C641177.002 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5C641175.001 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5C641177.002 on potemkin.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] An Implementation Policy for the Babel WG X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 12:45:52 -0000 > The Routing ADs have recently decided that Working Groups in the > Routing Area should have a policy on how much implementation is > required for protocol documents. I believe that our (unwritten) policy is that: - every protocol extension SHOULD have two independent implementations ; - every protocol extension MUST have at least one implementation. In other words, we make a good faith effort at producing two independent implementations, but try not to be too dogmatic if there is only one implementation of a protocol extension that is clearly corrent. Unless I'm mistaken, the current status is: - 6126bis has three independent interoperable implementations, of which one is not available (I'm not counting sbabeld and BIRD, which are not independent) ; - source-specific has just one implementation (Toke?) ; - delay-based has just one implementation ; - babel-HMAC has two independent implementations ; - babel-DTLS used to have two independent implementations (of which one is no longer available), but I'm not sure if either is fully compliant with the current draft. Does that sound right? -- Juliusz From nobody Wed Feb 13 05:35:14 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6806C128BCC; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 05:35:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=toke.dk 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 nbrfJWxEVkXd; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 05:35:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [IPv6:2a00:7660:6da:2001::664]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79DA8128CE4; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 05:35:09 -0800 (PST) From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1550064906; bh=h1JaAGgRocc6F1vSzsISI9ysRzYRj3943JPBPTVx6iE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=yq1w3EKTxyLAeMLOyTs6BzEdW1uVjFzgrMUBprhu6mcA7r9X+mdDT8on5D8kPJh/Z UdlATC8JhjZPLHM52EwlmUNEsx+HJODHhY3L+RVFQka9F7lQZncttalsLRvJ+sXTQy UG12HE0/tv87G3ge/KuerzbDsc/dHkyPlwthw3UkvslrQXoflFxgHlA4IyDgQCYLxz glkik9JSX6i1arlN3OB9K5bnKkpUVTvlV5TZP9i/0WmEzq3UKjD2TzUZjl1L6OZC+5 bTzot46G+WhbdvB9u4PAid9A8iP6zs4dRzXKa/V8ga8x08QYofmCO1jnc6icUF7mAO V3tDylNiOwwOQ== To: Juliusz Chroboczek , Donald Eastlake Cc: babel-chairs , Babel at IETF In-Reply-To: <87wom3g8lk.wl-jch@irif.fr> References: <87wom3g8lk.wl-jch@irif.fr> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 14:35:06 +0100 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <87lg2jn75h.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] An Implementation Policy for the Babel WG X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 13:35:13 -0000 Juliusz Chroboczek writes: >> The Routing ADs have recently decided that Working Groups in the >> Routing Area should have a policy on how much implementation is >> required for protocol documents. > > I believe that our (unwritten) policy is that: > > - every protocol extension SHOULD have two independent implementations ; > - every protocol extension MUST have at least one implementation. > > In other words, we make a good faith effort at producing two independent > implementations, but try not to be too dogmatic if there is only one > implementation of a protocol extension that is clearly corrent. > > Unless I'm mistaken, the current status is: > > - 6126bis has three independent interoperable implementations, of which > one is not available (I'm not counting sbabeld and BIRD, which are not > independent) ; Think you meant something different than BIRD here, right? :) > - source-specific has just one implementation (Toke?) ; Bird implements source-specific; so as soon as Babeld catches up we'll have two ;) > - delay-based has just one implementation ; > > - babel-HMAC has two independent implementations ; > > - babel-DTLS used to have two independent implementations (of which one > is no longer available), but I'm not sure if either is fully compliant > with the current draft. > > Does that sound right? Yup, think so :) -Toke From nobody Wed Feb 13 06:03:07 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECACC12D826 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 06:03:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 pyMRRbR3q4S4 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 06:03:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F39C21274D0 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 06:03:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:1]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/82085) with ESMTP id x1DE2tKx006508 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 13 Feb 2019 15:02:55 +0100 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay2/82085) with ESMTP id x1DE2vFb005299; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 15:02:57 +0100 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8589962CC1; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 15:03:00 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id PX6qHbpXk8Vj; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 15:02:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from pirx.irif.fr (unknown [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1B4B462CBD; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 15:02:55 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 15:02:55 +0100 Message-ID: <87lg2jg50w.wl-jch@irif.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: Toke =?ISO-8859-1?Q?H=F8iland-J=F8rgensen?= Cc: Donald Eastlake , Babel at IETF In-Reply-To: <87lg2jn75h.fsf@toke.dk> References: <87wom3g8lk.wl-jch@irif.fr> <87lg2jn75h.fsf@toke.dk> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]); Wed, 13 Feb 2019 15:02:55 +0100 (CET) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.141]); Wed, 13 Feb 2019 15:02:57 +0100 (CET) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 5C64238F.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-Miltered: at potemkin with ID 5C642391.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5C64238F.001 from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/null/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5C642391.000 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5C64238F.001 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5C642391.000 on potemkin.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] An Implementation Policy for the Babel WG X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 14:03:06 -0000 >> - 6126bis has three independent interoperable implementations, of which >> one is not available (I'm not counting sbabeld and BIRD, which are not >> independent) ; > Think you meant something different than BIRD here, right? :) I meant FRR of course. BIRD is a fully independent reimplementation (and pretty well done, if I may add). >> - source-specific has just one implementation (Toke?) ; > Bird implements source-specific; so as soon as Babeld catches up we'll > have two ;) Ah, ok, perfect. You did tell me, but it somehow escaped my mind. -- Juliusz From nobody Wed Feb 13 06:17:36 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E81A6129441 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 06:17:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=toke.dk 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 6X9tApEu3yZJ for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 06:17:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [IPv6:2a00:7660:6da:2001::664]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D662C127598 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 06:17:33 -0800 (PST) From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1550067450; bh=yqXqW3Cg6Fvi4LJO83Q0UwX4hJkfjdRcQ5t4GIZkM6c=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=CDqyUMHqn1Z1mdClR+f4ESHXJvhaKowc0k+vmaIeSBWjOoQhi/eOJ/9e6y7OEooVn HGoqwNuAWuaOrtceFnMQpAdruSE57LRHvFrcc9SBbYpxWisw0Q3NatfJ8DhhXYOjYu HDv297TvPodhS2e7m77CSvF/Nx/I1uNQFHv9RJGCkHefcHgOlybo/64pP/wrWmFdER 4DKOEQhNNzr8YqBMuyGrF93gfmdrp72NGsVXBUVbOT8mTU9AypCmgn87WVQMtNMJbW K5XVsQQcj2yMJSAt/aRpisS3Tbb9+MaTcYILmz6X1bro5Ky2HX/oUUYbqPb2z/Ebtm S6Pzlz5vsVe8Q== To: Juliusz Chroboczek Cc: Donald Eastlake , Babel at IETF In-Reply-To: <87lg2jg50w.wl-jch@irif.fr> References: <87wom3g8lk.wl-jch@irif.fr> <87lg2jn75h.fsf@toke.dk> <87lg2jg50w.wl-jch@irif.fr> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 15:17:30 +0100 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <87ftsrn56t.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] An Implementation Policy for the Babel WG X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 14:17:36 -0000 Juliusz Chroboczek writes: >>> - 6126bis has three independent interoperable implementations, of which >>> one is not available (I'm not counting sbabeld and BIRD, which are not >>> independent) ; > >> Think you meant something different than BIRD here, right? :) > > I meant FRR of course. BIRD is a fully independent reimplementation (and > pretty well done, if I may add). Right, figured that was what you meant. And thanks :) -Toke From nobody Mon Feb 18 07:00:41 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF5D41293B1 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 07:00:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 bY3BJNslOR6a for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 07:00:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51F97130F18 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 07:00:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0049287.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049287.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x1IErmog043188 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 10:00:28 -0500 Received: from alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp6.sbc.com [144.160.229.23]) by m0049287.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2qqvvu395c-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 10:00:28 -0500 Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x1IF0Qe5026535 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 10:00:27 -0500 Received: from zlp30483.vci.att.com (zlp30483.vci.att.com [135.47.91.189]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x1IF0PIL026463 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 10:00:25 -0500 Received: from zlp30483.vci.att.com (zlp30483.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp30483.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 00D8C4014670 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 15:00:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from GAALPA1MSGHUBAD.ITServices.sbc.com (unknown [130.8.218.153]) by zlp30483.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTPS id E39F54000687 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 15:00:24 +0000 (GMT) Received: from GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.5.91]) by GAALPA1MSGHUBAD.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.8.218.153]) with mapi id 14.03.0435.000; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 10:00:22 -0500 From: "STARK, BARBARA H" To: "babel@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: information-model: Message Log Format Thread-Index: AdTHk/bzBSkdn3fvQjK5iIDIqLbykg== Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 15:00:21 +0000 Message-ID: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0A54C3@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.70.203.109] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-02-18_11:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=282 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1902180110 Archived-At: Subject: [babel] information-model: Message Log Format X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 15:00:32 -0000 Hi Babel, We had discussion in January about what sort of message log format to requi= re (?) for the (optional to implement) Babel message log. There was general= agreement that libpcap was the best format, but not on how to require it. = I don't think that a conditional mandatory (something that MUST be true if = an optional element is implemented) is the same as mandatory, but I'm not w= illing to argue strongly about this. I'm also unwilling to define a new for= mat within IETF to avoid an external-to-IETF reference. My proposal then is= to make libpcap a "SHOULD". I think the risk of someone who chooses to imp= lement Babel message logging selecting some other format is low. But if thi= s is also no good, my next solution will be to remove the message log data = elements from the information model. Here's a link to the thread in the archive: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/babel/?gbt=3D1&q=3Dinfo-model%20me= ssage%20log Proposed language (under babel-interfaces): babel-message-log: : A reference or url link to a file that contains a time= stamped log of messages received and sent on babel-udp-port on this interfa= ce. The {{libpcap}} file format with .pcap file extension SHOULD be support= ed for message log files. Logging is enabled / disabled by babel-message-lo= g-enable. Normative Reference libpcap:=20 title: Libpcap=20 org: Wireshark=20 date: 2015=20 target: https://wiki.wireshark.org/Development/LibpcapFileFormat Barbara From nobody Mon Feb 18 07:21:39 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A11F130F18 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 07:21:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.591 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.591 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_TEMPERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 lbIA2kHbLS8N for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 07:21:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B455130F03 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 07:21:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0053301.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x1IF65Ep035034 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 10:21:35 -0500 Received: from alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp6.sbc.com [144.160.229.23]) by mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2qqwg7jy7c-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 10:21:35 -0500 Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x1IFLY5u015619 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 10:21:34 -0500 Received: from zlp30486.vci.att.com (zlp30486.vci.att.com [135.47.91.177]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x1IFLS5U015333 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 10:21:31 -0500 Received: from zlp30486.vci.att.com (zlp30486.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp30486.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 2E80940F6CE4 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 15:21:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from GAALPA1MSGHUBAD.ITServices.sbc.com (unknown [130.8.218.153]) by zlp30486.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTPS id 19E3640F6CE3 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 15:21:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.5.91]) by GAALPA1MSGHUBAD.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.8.218.153]) with mapi id 14.03.0435.000; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 10:21:27 -0500 From: "STARK, BARBARA H" To: "babel@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: info-model: hmac Thread-Index: AdTHm1zuE2LS0Gp8TSygAmXolRRJkw== Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 15:21:26 +0000 Message-ID: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0A5536@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.70.203.109] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-02-18_11:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1902180113 Archived-At: Subject: [babel] info-model: hmac X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 15:21:38 -0000 We had discussion in January about how to model HMAC parameters.=20 Some items of discussion:=20 - parameter(s) for identifying an HMAC key as being used for sent and/or r= eceived messages=20 -> I decided after playing around with it that I actually preferred To= ke's original suggestion of 2 Booleans instead of an enumeration - enable/disable -> I took enable/disable out of the HMAC objects and put a global enab= le/disable for HMAC in the top object of the model. - need to make sure keys cannot be read Here is what I ended up with ------------------------------------------------- Under babel-information-obj babel-hmac-enable babel-hmac-algorithms: : List of supported HMAC computation algorithms. Pos= sible values include "SHA256", "Blake2B", "Blake2S". babel-hmac: : A babel-hmac-obj object. If this object is implemented, it pr= ovides access to parameters related to the HMAC security mechanism. An impl= ementation MAY choose to expose this object as read-only. ------------------------------------------------- Under babel-hmac-obj object { string rw babel-hmac-algorithm; boolean rw babel-hmac-verify-received; string rw babel-hmac-interfaces<0..*>; babel-hmac-keys-obj rw babel-hmac-keys<0..*>; } babel-hmac-obj; babel-hmac-algorithm : The name of the HMAC algorithm this object instance = uses. The value MUST be the same as one of the enumerations listed in the b= abel-hmac-algorithms parameter. An implementation MAY choose to expose this= parameter as read-only ("ro"). babel-hmac-verify-received : A boolean flag indicating whether HMAC hashes = in received Babel messages are required to be present and are verified. If = this parameter is "true", received messages are required to have a valid HM= AC hash. An implementation MAY choose to expose this parameter as read-only= ("ro"). babel-hmac-interfaces: : List of references to the babel-interfaces entries= this babel-hmac entry applies to. If this list is empty, then it applies t= o all interfaces. An implementation MAY choose to expose this parameter as = read-only ("ro"). babel-hmac-keys: : A set of babel-hmac-keys-obj objects. ---------------------------------------- Under babel-hmac-keys-obj object { string ro babel-hmac-key-name; boolean rw babel-hmac-key-use-sign; boolean rw babel-hmac-key-use-verify; binary -- babel-hmac-key-value; [operation babel-hmac-key-test;] } babel-hmac-obj; babel-hmac-key-name: : A unique name for this HMAC key that can be used to = identify the key in this object instance, since the key value is not allowe= d to be read. This value can only be provided when this instance is created= , and is not subsequently writable. babel-key-use-sign: : Indicates whether this key value is used to sign Babe= l messages. Messages are signed using this key if the value is "true". An i= mplementation MAY choose to expose this parameter as read-only ("ro"). babel-key-use-verify: : Indicates whether this key value is used to verify = Babel messages. This key is used to verify messages if the value is "true".= An implementation MAY choose to expose this parameter as read-only ("ro"). babel-key-value: : The value of the HMAC key. An implementation MUST NOT al= low this parameter to be read. This can be done by always providing an empt= y string, or through permissions, or other means. This value can only be pr= ovided when this instance is created, and is not subsequently writable. babel-hmac-test: : An operation that allows the HMAC key and hash algorithm= to be tested to see if they produce an expected outcome. Input to this ope= ration is a binary string. The implementation is expected to create a hash = of this string using the babel-hmac-key-value and the babel-hmac-algorithm.= The output of this operation is the resulting hash, as a binary string. Barbara From nobody Mon Feb 18 07:42:27 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 766A9130DEA for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 07:42:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 Aeit9I7Cmj2V for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 07:42:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.157.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57807130F18 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 07:42:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0049458.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049458.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x1IFdwNO043441 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 10:42:20 -0500 Received: from alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp6.sbc.com [144.160.229.23]) by m0049458.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2qqwj1bfq3-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 10:42:11 -0500 Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x1IFfsSS000700 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 10:41:54 -0500 Received: from zlp30485.vci.att.com (zlp30485.vci.att.com [135.47.91.178]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x1IFfpa1000636 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 10:41:51 -0500 Received: from zlp30485.vci.att.com (zlp30485.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp30485.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 26BB8402FFC1 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 15:41:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from GAALPA1MSGHUBAB.ITServices.sbc.com (unknown [130.8.218.151]) by zlp30485.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTPS id 113B3402FFC0 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 15:41:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.5.91]) by GAALPA1MSGHUBAB.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.8.218.151]) with mapi id 14.03.0435.000; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 10:41:50 -0500 From: "STARK, BARBARA H" To: "babel@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: info-model: dtls Thread-Index: AdTHnyz40sD3iaHPQ+2CdZN42BeMpA== Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 15:41:49 +0000 Message-ID: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0A6B22@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.70.203.109] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-02-18_12:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1902180116 Archived-At: Subject: [babel] info-model: dtls X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 15:42:26 -0000 I've spent some time figuring out info model elements for DTLS. Here is wha= t I ended up with. Thoughts? Barbara ------------------------- Under top level babel-information-obj babel-dtls-enable (like with HMAC, enable/disable globally) babel-dtls-cert-types: : List of supported DTLS certificate types. Possible= values include "X.509" and "RawPublicKey". babel-dtls: : A babel-dtls-obj object. If this object is implemented, it pr= ovides access to parameters related to the DTLS security mechanism. An impl= ementation MAY choose to expose this object as read-only. -------------------------- Definition of babel-dtls-obj object { string rw babel-dtls-interfaces<0..*>; [boolean rw babel-dtls-cached-info;] [string rw babel-dtls-cert-prefer<0..*>;] babel-dtls-certs-obj rw babel-dtls-certs<0..*>; } babel-hmac-obj; babel-dtls-interfaces: : List of references to the babel-interfaces entries= this babel-dtls entry applies to. If this list is empty, then it applies t= o all interfaces. An implementation MAY choose to expose this parameter as = read-only ("ro"). babel-dtls-cached-info: : Indicates whether the cached_info extension is in= cluded in ClientHello and ServerHello messages. The extension is included i= f the value is "true". An implementation MAY choose to expose this paramete= r as read-only ("ro"). babel-dtls-cert-prefer: : List of supported certificate types, in order of = preference. The values MUST be among those listed in the babel-dtls-cert-ty= pes parameter. This list is used to populate the server_certificate_type ex= tension in a Client Hello. Values that are present in at least one instance= in the babel-dtls-certs object with a non-empty babel-cert-private-key wil= l be used to populate the client_certificate_type extension in a Client Hel= lo. babel-dtls-certs: : A set of babel-dtls-keys-obj objects. This contains bot= h certificates for this implementation to present for authentication, and t= o accept from others. Certificates with a non-empty babel-cert-private-key = can be presented by this implementation for authentication. ------------------------------------ Definition of babel-dtls-certs-obj object { string ro babel-cert-value; string ro babel-cert-type; binary -- babel-cert-private-key; [operation babel-cert-test;] } babel-hmac-obj; babel-cert-value: : The DTLS certificate in PEM format {{RFC7468}}. This va= lue can only be provided when this instance is created, and is not subseque= ntly writable. babel-cert-type: : The name of the certificate type of this object instance= . The value MUST be the same as one of the enumerations listed in the babel= -dtls-cert-types parameter. This value can only be provided when this insta= nce is created, and is not subsequently writable. babel-cert-private-key: : The value of the private key. If this is non-empt= y, this certificate can be used by this implementation to provide a certifi= cate during DTLS handshaking. An implementation MUST NOT allow this paramet= er to be read. This can be done by always providing an empty string, or thr= ough permissions, or other means. This value can only be provided when this= instance is created, and is not subsequently writable. babel-cert-test: : An operation that allows a hash of the provided input st= ring to be created using the certificate public key and the SHA-256 hash al= gorithm. Input to this operation is a binary string. The output of this ope= ration is the resulting hash, as a binary string. From nobody Mon Feb 18 07:58:47 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C37B312950A for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 07:58:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -17.5 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com 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 TKdLdv_WPCMz for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 07:58:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wr1-x436.google.com (mail-wr1-x436.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::436]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F8C7130F2F for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 07:58:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wr1-x436.google.com with SMTP id i16so10695432wrs.13 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 07:58:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=jtsk18DpmcrlaoxbwtlO9CzuiKUG1BN4G73siWNxGmU=; b=O7uJVWPxmgGgBmQeUv1YDnzTBrraq6DCtLiikS+FQHb4wI5sYnhX+vd+QZtqUqgtur ieIubxPfXZf3zdsNzcKCiojjeVggkJrvySkLPHg3bZXo6QoPxmpoGY/1xKdAFZqhL3d/ f+FLCuo5QTvsU/vO4hTjX6P7jwNsFahfW2jU0jz+46wJ5ybIEUpjdNF6G6JbwBsof97Z BLr7DmSP0VzkZUUBmdy7+1ZiXzIcSoDKek7TFsILWxsLVlCwmjXg+Tp4oZ1Y0TXNiLJJ 98KGJV6hq31yOdzYlnn6T3jomNdwPbIQwx1Ac/OlPqfI4xjqephSaHXP1EavRvXN8DOZ tpGw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=jtsk18DpmcrlaoxbwtlO9CzuiKUG1BN4G73siWNxGmU=; b=syriLusyJIxHjwT5xf4qNtu53SAKBYdk+ABw17I3oVA2QqDXNnaQ0CU7BTyfrlVt5P 5SU/71C/e17A6ZjpWDNl1CyZjPHRJxovJTojIgkjXraSQ860TzdQEvG2kYdZxTCJa9ft hbzD/hLJpPIxoU9foubU6tS/blEzBLPUZBraRbILbUzhZECn5TSrrumLCKx5FRhw5zlt rSP4zfzcs4UMTgOWwdDGe+pc3vA/m0LbZ2HaCArzb2/zDde1NGn4Dt69XP3l/Y7xJSLN 4ooKdeADJhPuw5rVOYI4lzkImcU16mvcbLJcc0LiipmQvK+mKCYMOl7pKzIizAqVq/e6 BUeg== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuZwSH5G3At1L06D2u2352+WKBQrUXVGhpz+ZSQSyfAnYrX8JY6h ORyB9MLkematmNHjseUAjOq47aIARKqpfZJrCXZ7tA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IYd3G8zbg7GmghITTQYCs/RDVoDvc7Tc3lII3odY3kwYe5W00jZ9ADleFDH+7bvYDnQepmOhKzrJ7y7hiMRreM= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4710:: with SMTP id y16mr3066972wrq.305.1550505520805; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 07:58:40 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0A54C3@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> In-Reply-To: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0A54C3@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> From: Gabriel Kerneis Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 16:58:04 +0100 Message-ID: To: "STARK, BARBARA H" Cc: "babel@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000caab5b05822d32de" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] information-model: Message Log Format X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 15:58:46 -0000 --000000000000caab5b05822d32de Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 4:00 PM STARK, BARBARA H wrote: > My proposal then is to make libpcap a "SHOULD". I think the risk of > someone who chooses to implement Babel message logging selecting some other > format is low. > I support this choice. babel-message-log: : A reference or url link to a file that contains a > timestamped log of messages received and sent on babel-udp-port on this > interface. The {{libpcap}} file format with .pcap file extension SHOULD be > supported for message log files. Logging is enabled / disabled by > babel-message-log-enable. > Do we want to explicitly that additional formats MAY be supported or is that always expected? Gabriel --000000000000caab5b05822d32de Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 4:00 PM STARK, BA= RBARA H <bs7652@att.com> wrote:=
My proposal then is to make libpcap a "SHOULD". I thi= nk the risk of someone who chooses to implement Babel message logging selec= ting some other format is low.

I suppor= t this choice.

babel-message-log: : A reference or url link to a file that contains a time= stamped log of messages received and sent on babel-udp-port on this interfa= ce. The {{libpcap}} file format with .pcap file extension SHOULD be support= ed for message log files. Logging is enabled / disabled by babel-message-lo= g-enable.

Do we want to explicitly that= additional formats MAY be supported or is that always expected?
=
Gabriel
--000000000000caab5b05822d32de-- From nobody Mon Feb 18 08:18:32 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E48D12950A for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 08:18:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.591 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.591 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_TEMPERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 ow74g2OyQEZr for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 08:18:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.157.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 099381277CC for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 08:18:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0049463.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049463.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x1IFtWdf044250; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 11:18:26 -0500 Received: from alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp6.sbc.com [144.160.229.23]) by m0049463.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2qqwemmja6-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 18 Feb 2019 11:18:24 -0500 Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x1IGI67W028815; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 11:18:07 -0500 Received: from zlp30486.vci.att.com (zlp30486.vci.att.com [135.47.91.177]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x1IGI3eo028773; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 11:18:03 -0500 Received: from zlp30486.vci.att.com (zlp30486.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp30486.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 224C24048B3D; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 16:18:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from GAALPA1MSGHUBAF.ITServices.sbc.com (unknown [130.8.218.155]) by zlp30486.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTPS id 110684048B38; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 16:18:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.5.91]) by GAALPA1MSGHUBAF.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.8.218.155]) with mapi id 14.03.0435.000; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 11:18:02 -0500 From: "STARK, BARBARA H" To: "'Gabriel Kerneis'" CC: "babel@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [babel] information-model: Message Log Format Thread-Index: AdTHk/bzBSkdn3fvQjK5iIDIqLbykgAOK0UAAAn1aJA= Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 16:18:01 +0000 Message-ID: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0A6BDD@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> References: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0A54C3@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.70.203.109] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-02-18_12:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=644 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1902180119 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] information-model: Message Log Format X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 16:18:31 -0000 Pj4gYmFiZWwtbWVzc2FnZS1sb2c6IDogQSByZWZlcmVuY2Ugb3IgdXJsIGxpbmsgdG8gYSBmaWxl IHRoYXQgY29udGFpbnMgDQo+PiBhIHRpbWVzdGFtcGVkIGxvZyBvZiBtZXNzYWdlcyByZWNlaXZl ZCBhbmQgc2VudCBvbiBiYWJlbC11ZHAtcG9ydCANCj4+IG9uIHRoaXMgaW50ZXJmYWNlLiBUaGUg e3tsaWJwY2FwfX0gZmlsZSBmb3JtYXQgd2l0aCAucGNhcCBmaWxlIGV4dGVuc2lvbiANCj4+IFNI T1VMRCBiZSBzdXBwb3J0ZWQgZm9yIG1lc3NhZ2UgbG9nIGZpbGVzLiBMb2dnaW5nIGlzIGVuYWJs ZWQgLyBkaXNhYmxlZCBieSBiYWJlbC1tZXNzYWdlLWxvZy1lbmFibGUuDQoNCj4gRG8gd2Ugd2Fu dCB0byBleHBsaWNpdGx5IHRoYXQgYWRkaXRpb25hbCBmb3JtYXRzIE1BWSBiZSBzdXBwb3J0ZWQg b3IgaXMgdGhhdCBhbHdheXMgZXhwZWN0ZWQ/DQoNCkkgdGhpbmsgaXQncyBhbHdheXMgZXhwZWN0 ZWQgaW4gdGhlIGFic2VuY2Ugb2YgYSBwcm9oaWJpdGlvbi4gSW4gbXkgZXhwZXJpZW5jZSwgTUFZ IHN0YXRlbWVudHMgYXJlIHJlYWxseSBvbmx5IHVzZWZ1bCB3aGVuIHRoZXJlJ3MgYSBkZXNpcmUg dG8gZW5jb3VyYWdlIGEgYmVoYXZpb3IgYW5kIHRoZXJlJ3Mgbm8gYWdyZWVtZW50IHRoYXQgaXQn cyBhICJTSE9VTEQiLiBNeSByZWFkaW5nIG9mIHRoZSB0aHJlYWQgaXMgdGhlcmUncyBubyBkZXNp cmUgdG8gYWN0aXZlbHkgZW5jb3VyYWdlIG90aGVyIGZvcm1hdHMuIFNvIEkgdGhpbmsgdGhlIGlt cGxpY2l0ICh1bnNwb2tlbikgIk1BWSIgcmF0aGVyIHRoYW4gZXhwbGljaXQgIk1BWSIgaXMgYmV0 dGVyLg0KQmFyYmFyYQ0K From nobody Mon Feb 18 14:05:43 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D92713104B for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 14:05:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=toke.dk 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 1P0AT_ArqOEm for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 14:05:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [52.28.52.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2C8B1274D0 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 14:05:39 -0800 (PST) From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1550527536; bh=W4nkb1Kt9ui49htM2MUOsyMb9ahrz4h2PR0yURbvClY=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=GKbQQwxVyuwLy83BzL0DLN1TNCCeWay/i+xPI47KUzyIOhWk3+N3vBu2mtYpJjINZ 2uK7Jrxll61IzAxiWzdwj7tYVGim6FpoL+llvZJCLgtCUb4z2Cm4pnahlxTF7iHdcr pajXpM95fj/wJ62pyYnqIbEl5l0LiMCHeaL/ANcAMiPqrXt8jSdORWzuhbto+avFnc OyViLnNcVYdnGsfj5hbw73Qjozm3W3qOVAtaRt1EvygUfjMk7OXIDQOpSVtospokXG UMMFUISO71Ib/CZtP+uGDDHmFH4tXNYxMKDvKSggroiTPaArl8Keq9yHOg04WkOko0 pVhLW4ljVCRWw== To: "STARK\, BARBARA H" , "babel\@ietf.org" In-Reply-To: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0A5536@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> References: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0A5536@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 23:05:35 +0100 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <877edwkb0w.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] info-model: hmac X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 22:05:42 -0000 "STARK, BARBARA H" writes: > We had discussion in January about how to model HMAC parameters. > Some items of discussion: > - parameter(s) for identifying an HMAC key as being used for sent and/or received messages > -> I decided after playing around with it that I actually preferred Toke's original suggestion of 2 Booleans instead of an enumeration > - enable/disable > -> I took enable/disable out of the HMAC objects and put a global enable/disable for HMAC in the top object of the model. > - need to make sure keys cannot be read > > Here is what I ended up with > ------------------------------------------------- > Under babel-information-obj > babel-hmac-enable > babel-hmac-algorithms: : List of supported HMAC computation algorithms. Possible values include "SHA256", "Blake2B", "Blake2S". > babel-hmac: : A babel-hmac-obj object. If this object is implemented, it provides access to parameters related to the HMAC security mechanism. An implementation MAY choose to expose this object as read-only. > ------------------------------------------------- > Under babel-hmac-obj > object { > string rw babel-hmac-algorithm; > boolean rw babel-hmac-verify-received; > string rw babel-hmac-interfaces<0..*>; > babel-hmac-keys-obj rw babel-hmac-keys<0..*>; > } babel-hmac-obj; > > babel-hmac-algorithm : The name of the HMAC algorithm this object instance uses. The value MUST be the same as one of the enumerations listed in the babel-hmac-algorithms parameter. An implementation MAY choose to expose this parameter as read-only ("ro"). > > babel-hmac-verify-received : A boolean flag indicating whether HMAC > hashes in received Babel messages are required to be present and are > verified. If this parameter is "true", received messages are required > to have a valid HMAC hash. An implementation MAY choose to expose this > parameter as read-only ("ro"). When I read this name (before reading the description) I read it as a verb (i.e., I expected this to be a boolean indicating whether a verified packet was received). So maybe choose a different name? Perhaps "babel-hmac-must-verify"? > babel-hmac-interfaces: : List of references to the babel-interfaces > entries this babel-hmac entry applies to. If this list is empty, then > it applies to all interfaces. An implementation MAY choose to expose > this parameter as read-only ("ro"). Why this list instead of making babel-hmac-obj a part of the interface object? -Toke From nobody Mon Feb 18 14:30:28 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDC8B13105F for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 14:30:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 q5-3aEIrcT6i for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 14:30:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-it1-x12c.google.com (mail-it1-x12c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7534A131058 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 14:30:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-it1-x12c.google.com with SMTP id l66so1702628itg.3 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 14:30:24 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=6vPoFpCngu0oK6GjODdultl98nLQCe7H/iuscjdvgq8=; b=jwai7fRQpqSwx5pSse2QFMPs64XP53aSb7B2ZOaHT3a9tWF6PFgmsxXtc0rtR+/240 3nEzhg40/252ipff7faMZm5Sud9EZmQrM184AsyPOHLy2AimDO2LXd+/GxR5NHJM4k0m fzuUPMkRswHj+H0hq1uFAUx12pLkyknc+tBqeZ0auJDQahNWOI/mmyoUJ6sDwfORlv2Q xOdf64sP09rIuLDFwLJEw3YxxLFqWbm/bL7JiGY3x/8FPLx5FFKwbxHIB0owL6drOdEG jfj/IgkXjuO0ISC4VKImc/mkh/yIyUNco2yH2WNCgGAtgE1poaqswuOsWwaqx0+qalE/ 5vuA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=6vPoFpCngu0oK6GjODdultl98nLQCe7H/iuscjdvgq8=; b=VrXHYgm64Oi8yXdF0Q1mwvEEEGX0CXjgXtUekb+8TJpsaBv9dPBqJuIHJh6oftm7o+ FLQA42WwJpCKpKUEB96fpyKWdVkdkIrrDOMbXdZoAWOGZctqYfk3WorqaAG4GFBJjhQn DvRC+SnJxu1njgQhz8i55n7TK1fzoHRxID+y2LTTilD+Bg6hvxXf3e5jodm4xOi05IXv OSjQpj1clUAu5LbJE5Ka6G7SSkQDp6DiBJVjqoIgHRIG0yrfLUi30+YcetyfWiWup17D DGojBnvNM2yLgisFLSTloFCJUKuw7Lgo7WONwv8P4nX3g1AjBSS4XKWPYQIp1npvNlKj SB9Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuYtekEXxJyPiBpj2AfBVDOkyHEF2xyIDdINrR800/Etq7Jyv3zF eBnpRDlgGCs7OnKkwfJL9VB95YtKSrKLxsixE/I= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3Ib9aWUitCshhQ8aT60DsC73ZL0KIbReaQY3i+0wb4vSVCTywqCTdDwRKWTjtY8u9xFjNrsDYXTad80h9HT9laU= X-Received: by 2002:a02:8a3d:: with SMTP id j58mr13639403jak.66.1550529023402; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 14:30:23 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0A6B22@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> In-Reply-To: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0A6B22@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Antonin_D=C3=A9cimo?= Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 23:29:59 +0100 Message-ID: To: "STARK, BARBARA H" Cc: "babel@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] info-model: dtls X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 22:30:27 -0000 Hello Barbara, > babel-dtls-enable (like with HMAC, enable/disable globally) > babel-dtls-interfaces I=E2=80=99m confused by this, does it still allow to have DTLS enabled on s= ome interfaces, and disabled on others? > } babel-hmac-obj; Two little copy paste omissions. -- Antonin From nobody Tue Feb 19 00:20:18 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3222124B0C for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 00:20:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 gd56hsoac2_y for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 00:20:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27E81129284 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 00:20:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/82085) with ESMTP id x1J8K3Za013833; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 09:20:03 +0100 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6633927299; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 09:20:08 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id pnl7oBjRWe2w; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 09:20:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from pirx.irif.fr (eduroam-prg-hf-1-7-177.net.univ-paris-diderot.fr [172.28.7.177]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D161727292; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 09:20:01 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 09:20:01 +0100 Message-ID: <87a7is2nri.wl-jch@irif.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: "STARK, BARBARA H" Cc: "babel@ietf.org" In-Reply-To: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0A5536@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> References: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0A5536@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.138]); Tue, 19 Feb 2019 09:20:03 +0100 (CET) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 5C6BBC33.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5C6BBC33.000 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5C6BBC33.000 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] info-model: hmac X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 08:20:17 -0000 > babel-hmac-algorithms: : List of supported HMAC computation > algorithms. Possible values include "SHA256", "Blake2B", "Blake2S". Should that be "HMAC-SHA256" instead? ISAKMP uses "HMAC-SHA256-256", while CBOR uses "HMAC 256/256". (Blake2 does not use the HMAC construction.) > babel-hmac-interfaces: : List of references to the babel-interfaces > entries this babel-hmac entry applies to. If this list is empty, then it > applies to all interfaces. An implementation MAY choose to expose this > parameter as read-only ("ro"). I'm still not sure I like the special handling of the empty list. > babel-key-use-verify: : Indicates whether this key value is used to > verify Babel messages. This key is used to verify messages if the value > is "true". An implementation MAY choose to expose this parameter as > read-only ("ro"). I think this requires some phrasing to clarify what happens when this value is false. From nobody Tue Feb 19 01:41:00 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EAAF130ED1 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 01:40:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -17.5 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com 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 pnughhIYwC7v for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 01:40:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wr1-x432.google.com (mail-wr1-x432.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::432]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7DAA4130EC2 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 01:40:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wr1-x432.google.com with SMTP id w17so21335238wrn.12 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 01:40:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=XFZ6XcnIpIXkR1N62WwgqePRwX6vSBlfGbHXSfZVDPw=; b=B2MfOx5xFSNJ8PhWG5GJNToOZmn7JGV3pkvYQE7zo6UmZz/mPUZEsnRFu/9iWhNine U6E+a+C2U9ejP7bNUd+W626wj2AgLFfvcLBblc551dR++xMOTq7WN+Nw45Huk+TSD4wW c3uMgVV9cZb8IyEUTPqymye1defH22Jalh/BJkODxQPv9Wksgob1BARz413lGMHf2o3A ESVbqVcsIejtdNsXRE8qp+Ki5SiTXpUZnQE2qar1I0C2ZvrthcvlizEXNFtN2Sp8bRep SqncoHxJyfMzeHmIJsEk8jUews2ld96VDVwTVRAzrrL5RpzQyHAN8JgLBGrDWS8CUJDf a9Vw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=XFZ6XcnIpIXkR1N62WwgqePRwX6vSBlfGbHXSfZVDPw=; b=Mq/0/oauMWbRqcFgSkR9CKgZTXnkmenvdwxbk7hvPym/Fvz/dD6/jubLKfjUI7vDRy y1w2+r9wgoi+rlssFl7fVjFbzQLongyGYUVjPbWFTJQk7gTOWArqm09tmYzPlG7oGnkY 9gNNq0EEbWz+vCNwas3QUejgdN5NIWWt5q+kf0YnSbf+8PakgS/zJUqU8q2wg7YBXuWL ftHJNErxj/fw9keMFwkrJHdNt0LOWYtYUWWB3Ae7eJJaQFxfzjM6hxPSoQXW+1DoRMpY vKf1seZbLUPz4eLwuFijeqpRB/VEwVESdtw+uOP8e0Jyi38Gv6/YZ+TDrjBn4U2TAQZ4 4mRA== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAubnB/JBNYcS4qLZKA8n6SMrFRjt+dyOZxcMbNoNx64Csxp9W5mK qPkglghG+UO3FHhukpgi/KAQv5n7MesrVHm/h8cpDQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IagwQoYrpKPRGwgZG+zhdbkiRpka2ApK/1Nk0V5PiDpXP5n2Yn17u+FtVg8C/Pht16anAe8zFUOWwNfwActAGc= X-Received: by 2002:adf:c752:: with SMTP id b18mr20063399wrh.105.1550569246419; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 01:40:46 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0A5536@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> <87a7is2nri.wl-jch@irif.fr> In-Reply-To: <87a7is2nri.wl-jch@irif.fr> From: Gabriel Kerneis Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 10:40:10 +0100 Message-ID: To: Juliusz Chroboczek Cc: "STARK, BARBARA H" , "babel@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000225c3905823c09b5" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] info-model: hmac X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 09:40:59 -0000 --000000000000225c3905823c09b5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 9:20 AM Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > > babel-hmac-interfaces: : List of references to the babel-interfaces > > entries this babel-hmac entry applies to. If this list is empty, then it > > applies to all interfaces. An implementation MAY choose to expose this > > parameter as read-only ("ro"). > > I'm still not sure I like the special handling of the empty list. > I second this opinion. I know at least one real-world network-related major outage caused by an "empty list means everything" bug, and it has made me very nervous of similar special cases ever since. Gabriel --000000000000225c3905823c09b5 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 9:20 AM Juliusz C= hroboczek <jch@irif.fr> wrote:
=
> babel-hmac-interfaces: : List of references to the babel-inter= faces
> entries this babel-hmac entry applies to. If this list is empty, then = it
> applies to all interfaces. An implementation MAY choose to expose this=
> parameter as read-only ("ro").

I'm still not sure I like the special handling of the empty list.

I second this opinion. I know at least one r= eal-world network-related major outage caused by an "empty list means = everything" bug, and it has made me very nervous of similar special ca= ses ever since.

Gabriel
--000000000000225c3905823c09b5-- From nobody Tue Feb 19 08:19:16 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD724130F1C for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 08:19:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 AC2VRBofqszM for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 08:19:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.157.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C21A130F1B for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 08:19:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0049459.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049459.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x1JG6xMt006826; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 11:19:12 -0500 Received: from alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp6.sbc.com [144.160.229.23]) by m0049459.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2qrmkv1dyc-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 19 Feb 2019 11:19:11 -0500 Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x1JGJAwA010280; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 11:19:10 -0500 Received: from zlp30485.vci.att.com (zlp30485.vci.att.com [135.47.91.178]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x1JGJ4AV010133; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 11:19:05 -0500 Received: from zlp30485.vci.att.com (zlp30485.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp30485.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 413D6402FFC1; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 16:19:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from GAALPA1MSGHUBAF.ITServices.sbc.com (unknown [130.8.218.155]) by zlp30485.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTPS id 303F5402FFC0; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 16:19:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.5.91]) by GAALPA1MSGHUBAF.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.8.218.155]) with mapi id 14.03.0435.000; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 11:19:03 -0500 From: "STARK, BARBARA H" To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=27Toke_H=F8iland-J=F8rgensen=27?= , "babel@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [babel] info-model: hmac Thread-Index: AdTHm1zuE2LS0Gp8TSygAmXolRRJkwAZJ6KAABmdO7A= Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 16:19:02 +0000 Message-ID: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0A81EB@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> References: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0A5536@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> <877edwkb0w.fsf@toke.dk> In-Reply-To: <877edwkb0w.fsf@toke.dk> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.61.166.232] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-02-19_10:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=886 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1902190119 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] info-model: hmac X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 16:19:15 -0000 > > babel-hmac-verify-received : A boolean flag indicating whether HMAC > > hashes in received Babel messages are required to be present and are > > verified. If this parameter is "true", received messages are required > > to have a valid HMAC hash. An implementation MAY choose to expose this > > parameter as read-only ("ro"). >=20 > When I read this name (before reading the description) I read it as a ver= b > (i.e., I expected this to be a boolean indicating whether a verified pack= et was > received). So maybe choose a different name? Perhaps "babel-hmac-must- > verify"? How about just "babel-hmac-verify"?=20 > > babel-hmac-interfaces: : List of references to the babel-interfaces > > entries this babel-hmac entry applies to. If this list is empty, then > > it applies to all interfaces. An implementation MAY choose to expose > > this parameter as read-only ("ro"). >=20 > Why this list instead of making babel-hmac-obj a part of the interface ob= ject? There are multiple (and separate) comments on the interfaces reference for = HMAC and DTLS. So I'm going to start a separate thread for that. Barbara From nobody Fri Feb 22 07:29:24 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8893A130E7C for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 07:29:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 ahAHXVnswR8j for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 07:29:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1AF3130EEE for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 07:29:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0049297.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049297.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x1MFI2mA001659; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 10:29:14 -0500 Received: from alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp6.sbc.com [144.160.229.23]) by m0049297.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2qtjr92jtg-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 22 Feb 2019 10:29:13 -0500 Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x1MFTC5h027351; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 10:29:12 -0500 Received: from zlp30486.vci.att.com (zlp30486.vci.att.com [135.47.91.177]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x1MFT5Ph027199; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 10:29:05 -0500 Received: from zlp30486.vci.att.com (zlp30486.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp30486.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id C8CC04048B47; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 15:29:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from GAALPA1MSGHUBAH.ITServices.sbc.com (unknown [130.8.218.157]) by zlp30486.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTPS id B655E4048B44; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 15:29:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.5.91]) by GAALPA1MSGHUBAH.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.8.218.157]) with mapi id 14.03.0435.000; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 10:29:05 -0500 From: "STARK, BARBARA H" To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=27Toke_H=F8iland-J=F8rgensen=27?= , "babel@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [babel] info-model: hmac Thread-Index: AdTHm1zuE2LS0Gp8TSygAmXolRRJkwAZJ6KAALBEgRA= Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 15:29:05 +0000 Message-ID: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0ACE10@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> References: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0A5536@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> <877edwkb0w.fsf@toke.dk> In-Reply-To: <877edwkb0w.fsf@toke.dk> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.70.233.30] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-02-22_11:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1902220107 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] info-model: hmac X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 15:29:23 -0000 Sorry it's taken me so long to reply to these. Sometimes I just need time t= o let comments soak in, so I can try to appreciate their full meaning and w= here the commenter might be coming from. I responded to the first part of T= oke's comment earlier, so this is to reply to the interface question (and I= realized all the interface reference questions were distinct so I'll be re= plying to each individually, after all). > -----Original Message----- > From: Toke H=F8iland-J=F8rgensen ------- snip ------------=20 > > babel-hmac-interfaces: : List of references to the babel-interfaces > > entries this babel-hmac entry applies to. If this list is empty, then > > it applies to all interfaces. An implementation MAY choose to expose > > this parameter as read-only ("ro"). >=20 > Why this list instead of making babel-hmac-obj a part of the interface ob= ject? If it's under the interface object, then I have to manage each interface se= parately. This means each instance needs to know which keys are used for th= at specific interface (even if multiple interfaces use the same key). Where= multiple interfaces use the same key(s), the keys either have to be duplic= ated under each interface, or I need to change the model to have a central = key store (and then put references either in each HMAC-interface instance a= s to the keys it uses, or put references in the key store as to which HMAC-= interface instances use that key). I considered "same key for multiple inte= rfaces" to be a likely scenario, so I wanted this to be easy to manage. The= current model still allows for HMAC instance per interface (each HMAC inst= ance points to exactly one interface). If this is the chosen deployment sce= nario, it's no more effort to manage the scenario with interface as a refer= ence rather than a parent. Where all interfaces use the same HMAC instance = (same keys, same settings), it's much easier to manage it this way. Barbara From nobody Fri Feb 22 07:39:08 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FDEE130E89 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 07:39:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 k5x6QN9FgwVR for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 07:39:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.157.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B14F130E6E for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 07:39:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0049459.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049459.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x1MFanPv034584; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 10:39:01 -0500 Received: from alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp6.sbc.com [144.160.229.23]) by m0049459.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2qtkkcs025-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 22 Feb 2019 10:39:01 -0500 Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x1MFd0d6014477; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 10:39:00 -0500 Received: from zlp30485.vci.att.com (zlp30485.vci.att.com [135.47.91.178]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x1MFcsYZ014364; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 10:38:54 -0500 Received: from zlp30485.vci.att.com (zlp30485.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp30485.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 10D0541578B6; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 15:38:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: from GAALPA1MSGHUBAH.ITServices.sbc.com (unknown [130.8.218.157]) by zlp30485.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTPS id F309C41578AE; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 15:38:53 +0000 (GMT) Received: from GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.5.91]) by GAALPA1MSGHUBAH.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.8.218.157]) with mapi id 14.03.0435.000; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 10:38:53 -0500 From: "STARK, BARBARA H" To: =?utf-8?B?J0FudG9uaW4gRMOpY2ltbyc=?= CC: "babel@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [babel] info-model: dtls Thread-Index: AdTHnyz40sD3iaHPQ+2CdZN42BeMpAAZDcaAALACEtA= Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 15:38:52 +0000 Message-ID: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0ACEA3@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> References: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0A6B22@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.70.233.30] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-02-22_11:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=725 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1902220110 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] info-model: dtls X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 15:39:06 -0000 DQoNCj4gLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCj4gRnJvbTogQW50b25pbiBEw6ljaW1v IDxhbnRvbmluLmRlY2ltb0BnbWFpbC5jb20+DQo+IA0KPiA+IGJhYmVsLWR0bHMtZW5hYmxlIChs aWtlIHdpdGggSE1BQywgZW5hYmxlL2Rpc2FibGUgZ2xvYmFsbHkpDQo+ID4gYmFiZWwtZHRscy1p bnRlcmZhY2VzDQo+IA0KPiBJ4oCZbSBjb25mdXNlZCBieSB0aGlzLCBkb2VzIGl0IHN0aWxsIGFs bG93IHRvIGhhdmUgRFRMUyBlbmFibGVkIG9uIHNvbWUNCj4gaW50ZXJmYWNlcywgYW5kIGRpc2Fi bGVkIG9uIG90aGVycz8NCg0KVG9rZSBoYWQgc3VnZ2VzdGVkICJzeXN0ZW0td2lkZSIgZW5hYmxl L2Rpc2FibGUgb2YgYSBzZWN1cml0eSBtZWNoYW5pc20sIHJhdGhlciB0aGFuIHBlciBpbnN0YW5j ZS4gU28gSSBkZWNpZGVkIHRvIGdpdmUgdGhhdCBhIHRyeSBpbiB0aGlzIHJlbmRpdGlvbiBvZiB0 aGUgbW9kZWwuIFNpbmNlIGVhY2ggRFRMUyBpbnN0YW5jZSBwb2ludHMgdG8gdGhlIGludGVyZmFj ZShzKSBpdCBhcHBsaWVzIHRvLCBpdCdzIHN0aWxsIHBvc3NpYmxlIHRvIGhhdmUgaW50ZXJmYWNl cyB0aGF0IGFyZW4ndCBwb2ludGVkIHRvIGJ5IGFueSBEVExTIGluc3RhbmNlIChzbyBEVExTIGlz bid0IHVzZWQgb24gdGhvc2UgaW50ZXJmYWNlcykuIEJ1dCBpZiB5b3UgaGF2ZSBEVExTIHVwIGFu ZCBydW5uaW5nIG9uIG11bHRpcGxlIGludGVyZmFjZXMgYW5kIHRoZW4gd2FudCB0byBkaXNhYmxl IG9uIHNvbWUgb2YgdGhvc2UgKGJ1dCBub3QgYWxsKSwgdGhpcyBtZWFucyB5b3UgZWl0aGVyIGhh dmUgdG8gZGVsZXRlIHRoZSBpbnRlcmZhY2VzIGZyb20gdGhlIGludGVyZmFjZSBsaXN0IG9yIGRl bGV0ZSB0aGUgZW50aXJlIGluc3RhbmNlIChpbmNsdWRpbmcga2V5cykuIEkgdGhpbmsgdGhpcyBp cyBkby1hYmxlLg0KDQpJIGRvbid0IGZlZWwgc3Ryb25nbHkgYWJvdXQgd2hldGhlciBlbmFibGUv ZGlzYWJsZSBpcyBhdCB0aGUgdG9wIG9yIHBlciBpbnN0YW5jZS4gRG8gb3RoZXJzIGhhdmUgdGhv dWdodHM/DQoNCj4gPiAgfSBiYWJlbC1obWFjLW9iajsNCj4gDQo+IFR3byBsaXR0bGUgY29weSBw YXN0ZSBvbWlzc2lvbnMuDQo+IA0KPiAtLSBBbnRvbmluDQoNClRoeC4gQW5kIHRoZXJlIGFyZSBw cm9iYWJseSBtYW55IG90aGVycy4uLiDwn5iKDQpJIGdyZWF0bHkgYXBwcmVjaWF0ZSBuaXRzIGJl aW5nIHBvaW50ZWQgb3V0Lg0KQmFyYmFyYQ0K From nobody Fri Feb 22 08:50:05 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEB48129741 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 08:50:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 0LkhbEJq4lnI for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 08:50:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0243129284 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 08:50:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0049287.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049287.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x1MGjGxk022346; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 11:50:01 -0500 Received: from alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp6.sbc.com [144.160.229.23]) by m0049287.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2qtkskttv0-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 22 Feb 2019 11:50:00 -0500 Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x1MGnxsa021637; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 11:49:59 -0500 Received: from zlp30484.vci.att.com (zlp30484.vci.att.com [135.47.91.179]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x1MGnrfE021489; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 11:49:57 -0500 Received: from zlp30484.vci.att.com (zlp30484.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp30484.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 02DEB4013D23; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 16:49:53 +0000 (GMT) Received: from GAALPA1MSGHUBAA.ITServices.sbc.com (unknown [130.8.218.150]) by zlp30484.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTPS id E46034000352; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 16:49:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: from GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.5.91]) by GAALPA1MSGHUBAA.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.8.218.150]) with mapi id 14.03.0435.000; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 11:49:52 -0500 From: "STARK, BARBARA H" To: "'Juliusz Chroboczek'" CC: "babel@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [babel] info-model: hmac Thread-Index: AdTHm1zuE2LS0Gp8TSygAmXolRRJkwAunRiAAJu7KlA= Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 16:49:51 +0000 Message-ID: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0ACFAC@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> References: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0A5536@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> <87a7is2nri.wl-jch@irif.fr> In-Reply-To: <87a7is2nri.wl-jch@irif.fr> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.70.233.30] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-02-22_12:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=747 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1902220118 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] info-model: hmac X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 16:50:04 -0000 > > babel-hmac-algorithms: : List of supported HMAC computation > > algorithms. Possible values include "SHA256", "Blake2B", "Blake2S". >=20 > Should that be "HMAC-SHA256" instead? ISAKMP uses "HMAC-SHA256-256", > while CBOR uses "HMAC 256/256". (Blake2 does not use the HMAC > construction.) So looking at the current babel-hmac-03 draft, it seems this should be: Pos= sible values include "HMAC-SHA256" and "BLAKE2s".=20 Of course, this doesn't preclude other enumeration values. It's just the on= ly ones that need to have enumerations specified are the ones listed in the= draft. Does that seem right? > > babel-hmac-interfaces: : List of references to the babel-interfaces > > entries this babel-hmac entry applies to. If this list is empty, then > > it applies to all interfaces. An implementation MAY choose to expose > > this parameter as read-only ("ro"). >=20 > I'm still not sure I like the special handling of the empty list. OK. So would it be better to either 1. If the instance applies to all interfaces, all interfaces must be listed or 2. Have a Boolean "babel-hmac-apply-all" where if true, this overrides what= ever is in the interface list and the instance applies to all interfaces. I= f false, then the interface list is used; and if the interface list is empt= y and "apply-all" is false, then the instance applies to no interfaces. > > babel-key-use-verify: : Indicates whether this key value is used to > > verify Babel messages. This key is used to verify messages if the > > value is "true". An implementation MAY choose to expose this parameter > > as read-only ("ro"). >=20 > I think this requires some phrasing to clarify what happens when this val= ue is > false. Would this be better? : babel-key-use-verify: : Indicates whether this key value is used to verify received Babel packets. This key is used to verify received packets = if the value is "true". If the value is "false", no HMAC is computed from this key for comparing a received packet. An implementation MAY choose to expose this parameter as read-only ("ro"). Barbara From nobody Fri Feb 22 08:58:40 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29E15130EEE for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 08:58:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 0n0xX3rTFypm for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 08:58:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F5F212D826 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 08:58:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:1]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/82085) with ESMTP id x1MGvsZn026029 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 22 Feb 2019 17:57:54 +0100 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay2/82085) with ESMTP id x1MGvuMm012474; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 17:57:56 +0100 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D8B3485DC; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 17:57:59 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id RetknsGXszvH; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 17:57:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from lanthane.irif.fr (unknown [172.23.36.89]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 181EE485DA; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 17:57:57 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 17:57:57 +0100 Message-ID: <87wolryd4a.wl-jch@irif.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: "STARK, BARBARA H" Cc: "babel@ietf.org" In-Reply-To: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0ACFAC@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> References: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0A5536@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> <87a7is2nri.wl-jch@irif.fr> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0ACFAC@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]); Fri, 22 Feb 2019 17:57:55 +0100 (CET) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.141]); Fri, 22 Feb 2019 17:57:56 +0100 (CET) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 5C702A12.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-Miltered: at potemkin with ID 5C702A14.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5C702A12.001 from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/null/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5C702A14.000 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5C702A12.001 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5C702A14.000 on potemkin.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] info-model: hmac X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 16:58:39 -0000 >> I'm still not sure I like the special handling of the empty list. > 1. If the instance applies to all interfaces, all interfaces must be listed > or > 2. Have a Boolean "babel-hmac-apply-all" where if true, this overrides > whatever is in the interface list and the instance applies to all > interfaces. If false, then the interface list is used; and if the > interface list is empty and "apply-all" is false, then the instance > applies to no interfaces. Yeah, I think that's less error-prone. > babel-key-use-verify: : Indicates whether this key value is used to > verify received Babel packets. This key is used to verify received > packets if the value is "true". If the value is "false", no HMAC is > computed from this key for comparing a received packet. Perhaps "incoming" instead of "received"? I still feel there's something missing, though -- I feel you need to say explicitly that if the value is false, the HMAC is still used for signing outgoing packets. (I assume that's the intent.) -- Juliusz From nobody Fri Feb 22 09:23:41 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7539E130F39 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 09:23:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 xGrJlBKb7o_4 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 09:23:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.157.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A5F6130F27 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 09:23:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0049458.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049458.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x1MHN9Vn019582; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 12:23:37 -0500 Received: from alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp6.sbc.com [144.160.229.23]) by m0049458.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2qtneag0cy-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 22 Feb 2019 12:23:36 -0500 Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x1MHNadg025337; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 12:23:36 -0500 Received: from zlp30483.vci.att.com (zlp30483.vci.att.com [135.47.91.189]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x1MHNWDU025243; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 12:23:32 -0500 Received: from zlp30483.vci.att.com (zlp30483.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp30483.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id F3FBB4014691; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 17:23:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from GAALPA1MSGHUBAH.ITServices.sbc.com (unknown [130.8.218.157]) by zlp30483.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTPS id E0FD44014665; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 17:23:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.5.91]) by GAALPA1MSGHUBAH.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.8.218.157]) with mapi id 14.03.0435.000; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 12:23:31 -0500 From: "STARK, BARBARA H" To: "'Juliusz Chroboczek'" CC: "babel@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [babel] info-model: hmac Thread-Index: AdTHm1zuE2LS0Gp8TSygAmXolRRJkwAunRiAAJu7KlAADTtUgAAKHpqg Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 17:23:31 +0000 Message-ID: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0AD1BC@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> References: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0A5536@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> <87a7is2nri.wl-jch@irif.fr> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0ACFAC@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> <87wolryd4a.wl-jch@irif.fr> In-Reply-To: <87wolryd4a.wl-jch@irif.fr> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.70.233.30] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-02-22_12:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=820 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1902220121 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] info-model: hmac X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 17:23:40 -0000 > >> I'm still not sure I like the special handling of the empty list. >=20 > > 1. If the instance applies to all interfaces, all interfaces must be > > listed or 2. Have a Boolean "babel-hmac-apply-all" where if true, this > > overrides whatever is in the interface list and the instance applies > > to all interfaces. If false, then the interface list is used; and if > > the interface list is empty and "apply-all" is false, then the > > instance applies to no interfaces. >=20 > Yeah, I think that's less error-prone. Do you prefer option 1 (to apply to all interfaces, list all interfaces) or= option 2 (Boolean to apply to all interfaces)? =20 > > babel-key-use-verify: : Indicates whether this key value is used to > > verify received Babel packets. This key is used to verify received > > packets if the value is "true". If the value is "false", no HMAC is > > computed from this key for comparing a received packet. >=20 > Perhaps "incoming" instead of "received"? Hmph. I used "received" because the section of babel-hmac-03 that=20 discusses the related behavior is "4.3. Packet Reception=20 When a packet is received..." But I can change to "incoming", if that's preferred. =20 > I still feel there's something missing, though -- I feel you need to say = explicitly > that if the value is false, the HMAC is still used for signing outgoing p= ackets. (I > assume that's the intent.) The parameter listed right before this one is babel-key-use-sign: : Indicates whether this key value is used to sign Babel messages. Messages are signed using this key if the value is "true". An implementation MAY choose to expose this parameter as read-only ("ro"). I can change this similar to the "babel-key-use-verify", to=20 Indicates whether this key value is used to sign sent Babel packets. Sent packets are signed using this key if the value is "true". If the value is "false", this key is not used to sign sent Babel packets. Both use-sign and use-verify parameters are Booleans, and they're independe= nt. So, no, there's no intent that if use-verify is false this implies it's= still used for signing. Only if use-sign =3D true is it used for signing. = It's possible for one or the other to be true, both true, or both false. Barbara From nobody Sat Feb 23 03:50:35 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E6511289FA for ; Sat, 23 Feb 2019 03:50:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 SR-aFiu0mB4F for ; Sat, 23 Feb 2019 03:50:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB43012D829 for ; Sat, 23 Feb 2019 03:50:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/82085) with ESMTP id x1NBoKl0014183; Sat, 23 Feb 2019 12:50:20 +0100 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id B70DB4F41D; Sat, 23 Feb 2019 12:50:24 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id W0XGcJRXtjnt; Sat, 23 Feb 2019 12:50:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from pirx.irif.fr (unknown [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 62C964F41B; Sat, 23 Feb 2019 12:50:22 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2019 12:50:22 +0100 Message-ID: <878sy6k9kx.wl-jch@irif.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: "STARK, BARBARA H" Cc: "babel@ietf.org" In-Reply-To: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0AD1BC@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> References: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0A5536@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> <87a7is2nri.wl-jch@irif.fr> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0ACFAC@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> <87wolryd4a.wl-jch@irif.fr> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0AD1BC@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.138]); Sat, 23 Feb 2019 12:50:20 +0100 (CET) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 5C71337C.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5C71337C.000 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5C71337C.000 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] info-model: hmac X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2019 11:50:34 -0000 > Do you prefer option 1 (to apply to all interfaces, list all interfaces) > or option 2 (Boolean to apply to all interfaces)? I think it's good to be able to say that a key applies to all interfaces, especially if the set of available interfaces can vary dynamically. > Both use-sign and use-verify parameters are Booleans, and they're > independent. So, no, there's no intent that if use-verify is false this > implies it's still used for signing. Only if use-sign = true is it used > for signing. It's possible for one or the other to be true, both true, > or both false. Right. Looking at your prose again, nihil obstat. -- Juliusz From nobody Sat Feb 23 21:53:55 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 126FC130E68; Sat, 23 Feb 2019 21:53:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.749 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 4xOFqRNHxBPb; Sat, 23 Feb 2019 21:53:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-io1-xd43.google.com (mail-io1-xd43.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d43]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D91551228B7; Sat, 23 Feb 2019 21:53:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-io1-xd43.google.com with SMTP id x4so5073766ion.2; Sat, 23 Feb 2019 21:53:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=YezR0MRNegi0NmLut/WFQhG6EeIM/QQ1Rfz15P2yU34=; b=Kx/G+37czBL1vokE9gzS0BZv3sjvPHjlPSrGByv2TKUT0zakStwZ5xfWL6WX43fq9/ M2A6/UF8dlqhUSL1wxsxB+HEWfqXxmSXzHc4EthE/Y7D7nzh7QuHYr0b5CjaLpxtTa0U Z7BpXfEWn1raG8iTMefMQcYOTS+PuwSex6fdOzGcfX3E6/d8wr5kN6Ofe9oUDpQORZyZ 3BzB83kUN9VTc9SNTxLvTkTKnADiyfdkA9pxCW9x0UaV6qDqwvhJGBmGGmmVrcgggqjo 7VgL9jwDtlyE/zeQaUI2z/ZH4rs8lzVSI0t2TEujWNP4iw41LRif73wcx2/tQvh/bDCV A5Cg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=YezR0MRNegi0NmLut/WFQhG6EeIM/QQ1Rfz15P2yU34=; b=dLt7ddofBkuwAen7aJ479A/fZZKym8jaJDZD7vAs1KyawH278P1fV2eFmvKQM+ohSb ewojtdzuZElMV/aabRrq16xe67D74lGknqAh5bbOYEhzx512Na778SsCZSqyLnCr4/DW 6Szlf2w1daWLVa1DsV2DPCly8Dj+3Z0Df7neZrvCrYFCqoVadn/z6jwrsfelmEs+X/XJ QdyYIYK3LcFEbD1CA4nOfRtFUuS8D/N0jaofPvuC0fUVeF4sbdGvulhOB/JeIArGMr5q uYSmEKWlOiKf8vXCMOLOxEQViLFtyx6dk8NZaNcFqofJTNy0xMyHXtePoOYUMby2Ocra RNjg== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAubonIo1DjfE/VKMWHgiOO8ax6fthqJB0FELcLbPlYzZSWbMZzsT Cb1gMxuaG/Q2Hzq1VkAza66s2Bxp/3xmmIXCnI+Wtthr X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IbIvaAtX8BnVLPrAUTVHya0CouuKtTsUiNABr1lT3tSqvhk8egYAqpp7G20WSNwJzmTjm6SWkK3lA/FhPaqEQg= X-Received: by 2002:a6b:5006:: with SMTP id e6mr6735065iob.132.1550987629605; Sat, 23 Feb 2019 21:53:49 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Donald Eastlake Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 00:53:37 -0500 Message-ID: To: Babel at IETF Cc: draft-ietf-babel-hmac@ietf.org, babel-chairs Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b6b81d05829d728e" Archived-At: Subject: [babel] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-babel-hmac-03 X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 05:53:53 -0000 --000000000000b6b81d05829d728e Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi, Section 2, Page 4, first sentence: "for cryptographic protection" -> "for HMAC cryptographic protection" or, if you don't want to use HMAC here, could change to "for cryptographic protection as specified herein". Parallel change in the following sentence. Section 4, page 8/9, Section 4.3.1.2, page 10. I'm slightly confused about the interaction of these sections. So, when you receive a packet with a successful Challenge Reply, the PC and Index are stored in the Neighbor Table entry for the sender. Then, a bit further down in Section 4, it says to compare the received PC with the PC in the Neighbor Table and to discard the packet if the PC in the packet is smaller or equal to it. So, if you received a packet with a successful Challenge Reply, you would store the PC and Index and then later find the PC in the packet and Neighbor Table to be equal so you discard the packet, which might be OK since you have already set the Neighbor Table fields. But in 4.3.1.2, it clearly contemplates putting other TLVs into the packet with the Challenge Reply, with TLVs would get discarded. Or am I just confused? Section 5.2. We have already argued over the packet format diagram. I guess we will see what other levels of review say. The various timers here (5 min to discard Neighbor Table entry (Section 4.4), 30 seconds challenge expiry timer (Section 4.3.1.1), and 300ms challenge rate limit (Section 4.3.1.1)) should be described as configurable with a default value of the value currently suggested. The TLV type values have been assigned. Please replace TBDs with the IANA values and the IANA Considerations section should start with something like "IANA has allocated the Type values listed below for the TLVs specified in this document". (See https://www.iana.org/assignments/babel/babel.xhtml) The size limit of 192 for nonces should be motivated. Perhaps "to leave some room for possible future sub-TLV inclusion". Appendix A: Seems like somewhere in the main text body it should say that "Implementations SHOULD be separately configurable to (1) send or not send HMAC security TLVs and (2) process or ignore HMAC security TLVs on receipt." Appendix B: Add after Appendix B header and before Appendix B.1 header: "RFC-Editor: Please remove this section before publication". Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 1424 Pro Shop Court, Davenport, FL 33896 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com --000000000000b6b81d05829d728e Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,

Section 2, Pa= ge 4, first sentence: "for cryptographic protection" -> "= for HMAC cryptographic protection" or, if you don't want to use HM= AC here, could change to "for cryptographic protection as specified he= rein". Parallel change in the following sentence.

=
Section 4, page 8/9, Section 4.3.1.2, page 10. I'm slightly confus= ed about the interaction of these sections. So, when you receive a packet w= ith a successful Challenge Reply, the PC and Index are stored in the Neighb= or Table entry for the sender. Then, a bit further down in Section 4, it sa= ys to compare the received PC with the PC in the Neighbor Table and to disc= ard the packet if the PC in the packet is smaller or equal to it. So, if yo= u received a packet with a successful Challenge Reply, you would store the = PC and Index and then later find the PC in the packet and Neighbor Table to= be equal so you discard the packet, which might be OK since you have alrea= dy set the Neighbor Table fields.=C2=A0 But in 4.3.1.2, it clearly contempl= ates putting other TLVs into the packet with the Challenge Reply, with TLVs= would get discarded. Or am I just confused?

Secti= on 5.2. We have already argued over the packet format diagram. I guess we w= ill see what other levels of review say.

The vario= us timers here (5 min to discard Neighbor Table entry (Section 4.4), 30 sec= onds challenge expiry timer (Section 4.3.1.1), and 300ms challenge rate lim= it (Section 4.3.1.1)) should be described as configurable with a default va= lue of the value currently suggested.

The TLV type= values have been assigned. Please replace TBDs with the IANA values and th= e IANA Considerations section should start with something like "IANA h= as allocated the Type values listed below for the TLVs specified in this do= cument". (See https://www.iana.org/assignments/babel/babel.xhtml)
The size limit of 192 for nonces should be motivated. Perhaps = "to leave some room for possible future sub-TLV inclusion".
=

Appendix A: Seems like somewhere in the main text body = it should say that "Implementations SHOULD be separately configurable = to (1) send or not send HMAC security TLVs and (2) process or ignore HMAC s= ecurity TLVs on receipt."

Appendix B: Add aft= er Appendix B header and before Appendix B.1 header: "RFC-Editor: Plea= se remove this section before publication".

<= div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_signature">Thanks,
Donald
=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D
=C2=A0Donald E. Eastlake 3rd =C2=A0 +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
=C2= =A01424 Pro Shop Court, Davenport, FL 33896 USA
=C2=A0d3e3e3@gmail.com
<= /div>
--000000000000b6b81d05829d728e-- From nobody Sun Feb 24 03:44:29 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26FED130E6B; Sun, 24 Feb 2019 03:44:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 sBK4qg886ZZ9; Sun, 24 Feb 2019 03:44:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE8E6129524; Sun, 24 Feb 2019 03:44:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/82085) with ESMTP id x1OBiHRD011261; Sun, 24 Feb 2019 12:44:17 +0100 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C66149986; Sun, 24 Feb 2019 12:44:22 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id 1LiFgNauPEom; Sun, 24 Feb 2019 12:44:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from pirx.irif.fr (unknown [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AEB3E49984; Sun, 24 Feb 2019 12:44:19 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 12:44:19 +0100 Message-ID: <87o9711kdo.wl-jch@irif.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: Donald Eastlake Cc: Babel at IETF , draft-ietf-babel-hmac@ietf.org, babel-chairs In-Reply-To: References: User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.138]); Sun, 24 Feb 2019 12:44:17 +0100 (CET) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 5C728391.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5C728391.001 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5C728391.001 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-babel-hmac-03 X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 11:44:27 -0000 Thanks a lot, Donald, you make some good points. I'll produce a new revision ASAP. -- Juliusz From nobody Sun Feb 24 07:19:42 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8ABC127AC2 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2019 07:19:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.602 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 hICSQN6wp5WI for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2019 07:19:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8969F1277CC for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2019 07:19:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0048589.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0048589.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x1OF5KH2013890 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2019 10:19:40 -0500 Received: from alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp6.sbc.com [144.160.229.23]) by m0048589.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2quu1ru7ky-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2019 10:19:39 -0500 Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x1OFJcZD017706 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2019 10:19:38 -0500 Received: from zlp30486.vci.att.com (zlp30486.vci.att.com [135.47.91.177]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x1OFJYGS017672 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2019 10:19:35 -0500 Received: from zlp30486.vci.att.com (zlp30486.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp30486.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 122714048B44 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2019 15:19:34 +0000 (GMT) Received: from GAALPA1MSGHUBAE.ITServices.sbc.com (unknown [130.8.218.154]) by zlp30486.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTPS id 011FC40002BE for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2019 15:19:34 +0000 (GMT) Received: from GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.5.84]) by GAALPA1MSGHUBAE.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.8.218.154]) with mapi id 14.03.0435.000; Sun, 24 Feb 2019 10:19:32 -0500 From: "STARK, BARBARA H" To: "babel@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: info-model: enable/disable statistics Thread-Index: AdTMVFdk+WM5GbP4SEy04EaNPnT2NA== Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 15:19:32 +0000 Message-ID: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0B5585@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.70.206.52] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-02-24_09:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=724 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1902240120 Archived-At: Subject: [babel] info-model: enable/disable statistics X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 15:19:42 -0000 Previously (according to my notes from Bangkok) we had agreed to have some = optional statistics parameters. Here's what I had recorded:=20 Under interface object: sent multicast Hello, sent updates, received Babel = messages; under neighbor object: sent unicast Hello, sent updates, sent IHU= , received Hello, received updates, received IHUs. Would also need to enabl= e/disable stats and clear stats. I'm having some discussion with Mahesh (over at https://github.com/bhstark2= /babel-information-model/tree/PR1) about the "enable/disable stats" part of= this. So I'd appreciate additional group input. Note that all statistics parameters are optional to implement. Is it useful to be able to enable/disable collection of statistics, or shou= ld an implementation that supports statistics simply always collect them? M= y view is that it's possible that collecting statistics can cause performan= ce issues in some less-capable devices. In this case, the enable/disable pa= rameter is a good idea. Since the parameter is optional, an implementation = that would expect no performance issues and wants to have statistics collec= tion always enabled can simply choose not to implement the parameter. If defining the (optional) ability to enable/disable statistics is agreed t= o, should it be at the interface level, or global? Barbara From nobody Sun Feb 24 18:45:56 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 703B7128BCC; Sun, 24 Feb 2019 18:45:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.75 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 jxzh2OY0e6b8; Sun, 24 Feb 2019 18:45:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-it1-x12f.google.com (mail-it1-x12f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC76E128701; Sun, 24 Feb 2019 18:45:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-it1-x12f.google.com with SMTP id r11so10807836itc.2; Sun, 24 Feb 2019 18:45:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=JjdrsgtAo15H5npZjFwzv4C6Llk8HiVqbOVk1Idtbm8=; b=JfLqr2ec1ftzX85vI3vErDAHnM64073FLWvk0NM8Tq3/zO0b1zPjUGIHAnbyl2lOPT njmwanSRyJS0s8kKdx0X9QBJDWByIaph+opcNxkhHQplvr4H7AGCGvllbc57v21uBSdj h0bdpF2xM2RDqspzpdeVkVvmU6oQtNJimc6WEnxptG6erGs3RzKakG3A+BRSlRsR6pCa u73AqpqpBCVtPwE1oP1k6rihaH4eSc3C8R8IddGneMX7525H/E9b7urzcPdlVq3rF0xc 2tQQlgFBy3mGMyr9bzBJY1EWm/6M8B7DSoS1giMFvIornBaJ8nQaxLBvnvVdXIU9SsjH gzDA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=JjdrsgtAo15H5npZjFwzv4C6Llk8HiVqbOVk1Idtbm8=; b=Ct4opvyqTNL6irREQjEiWXqOcNBeK0Titx9SREdjc2zJct10LfvIVMLS4bdfy4NFri hMHhO2HwFsC5/IjOiR90qu8ZuPdOa6vW3TKuH0zhu/loLw2Rzbx5jx307+89NyrB8HML jpAwLhOG0og/rOXaDYbhPQrtLIhXNFL1d+5p+VLCXGCyBXAfByafVxxWfFdLmocCO8p6 gFt/AnpaICE6qtKIYdgK812tBhwyjPbZMJB9wrved0j9rHldADRqkiugaW8++wD2O621 8qxvq4qFHMArlLbCLhN4e6qH3DiIXBVtdOpaYSMWBkGYkoKk++bt3q1uYZVRw6e2+TD6 FLbg== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuZPoRkWO249Z1Texka7o5GFoiNhcfqS9ajCRj59hcGXS4CNVLhO 5ZBjTvm4Ml37ql/KMwMuR1/IHASAXbbhPGRMyiIqvg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IaR+YB+DYwZG2rnGAuuWLaSiNM2x6C51LF0tGJwwClY6VcJr0DVizB3IYadVDAaMId6JQvmO1ccpJWHXV2KXhM= X-Received: by 2002:a24:715:: with SMTP id f21mr7913964itf.103.1551062751782; Sun, 24 Feb 2019 18:45:51 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Donald Eastlake Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 21:45:41 -0500 Message-ID: To: Babel at IETF Cc: babel-chairs Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Archived-At: Subject: [babel] Babel WG meeting in Prague X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 02:45:55 -0000 Hi, There is a Babel WG meeting tentative scheduled for Thursday morning 09:00 to 10:30 local time, 28 March, at the March IETF meeting in Prague, Czech Republic. If you'd like to present at the meeting, contact the chairs or reply to this message. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 1424 Pro Shop Court, Davenport, FL 33896 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com From nobody Mon Feb 25 05:55:23 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50D23130F05 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 05:55:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 AILdhZND8rcD for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 05:55:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.157.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD3EA130F04 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 05:55:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0049462.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049462.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x1PDZo7S023547 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 08:55:17 -0500 Received: from alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp6.sbc.com [144.160.229.23]) by m0049462.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2qvh6j8f1w-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 08:55:12 -0500 Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x1PDqkiH028763 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 08:52:46 -0500 Received: from zlp30488.vci.att.com (zlp30488.vci.att.com [135.47.91.93]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x1PDqgkU028713 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 08:52:44 -0500 Received: from zlp30488.vci.att.com (zlp30488.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp30488.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 13F9C4048C22 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 13:52:42 +0000 (GMT) Received: from GAALPA1MSGHUBAA.ITServices.sbc.com (unknown [130.8.218.150]) by zlp30488.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTPS id 0362E4048C21 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 13:52:42 +0000 (GMT) Received: from GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.5.84]) by GAALPA1MSGHUBAA.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.8.218.150]) with mapi id 14.03.0435.000; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 08:52:41 -0500 From: "STARK, BARBARA H" To: "babel@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: info-model: message vs. packet Thread-Index: AdTNEJ8UbRS+q/f7RQ6Rb9GHi5duuQ== Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 13:52:40 +0000 Message-ID: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0B95FA@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [130.10.217.239] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-02-25_07:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=543 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1902250101 Archived-At: Subject: [babel] info-model: message vs. packet X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 13:55:21 -0000 I notice the various Babel drafts use "packet" more than "message". Would i= t make sense to uniformly use "packet" instead of "message" in the info mod= el? Right now, the reverse is true ("message" is used instead of "packet"). This would impact some parameter names: babel-message-log -> babel-packet-log babel-message-log-enable -> babel-packet-log-enable babel-received-messages -> babel-received-packets (this is a statistic) BTW, I think we're getting close on the info model and I'm hoping to be abl= e to ask for WGLC after the next revision is published. Which I hope will b= e this week. Barbara From nobody Mon Feb 25 06:09:20 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9853130F04; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 06:09:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 heh0MaGvNm4z; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 06:09:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.157.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EC84129524; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 06:09:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0049462.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049462.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x1PE7qpG009214; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 09:09:15 -0500 Received: from alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp6.sbc.com [144.160.229.23]) by m0049462.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2qvhqu89ju-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 25 Feb 2019 09:09:15 -0500 Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x1PE9E93004462; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 09:09:15 -0500 Received: from zlp30486.vci.att.com (zlp30486.vci.att.com [135.47.91.177]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x1PE96DK004106; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 09:09:08 -0500 Received: from zlp30486.vci.att.com (zlp30486.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp30486.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 829254048B43; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 14:09:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: from GAALPA1MSGHUBAB.ITServices.sbc.com (unknown [130.8.218.151]) by zlp30486.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTPS id 71CC34048B41; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 14:09:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: from GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.5.84]) by GAALPA1MSGHUBAB.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.8.218.151]) with mapi id 14.03.0435.000; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 09:09:06 -0500 From: "STARK, BARBARA H" To: Babel at IETF CC: babel-chairs Thread-Topic: [babel] Babel WG meeting in Prague Thread-Index: AQHUzLRCF8NTeuVKL0SQVHM971FDrKXwjL4w Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 14:09:05 +0000 Message-ID: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0B96CE@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [130.10.217.239] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-02-25_08:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=515 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1902250105 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Babel WG meeting in Prague X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 14:09:19 -0000 > From: Donald Eastlake >=20 > There is a Babel WG meeting tentative scheduled for Thursday morning > 09:00 to 10:30 local time, 28 March, at the March IETF meeting in Prague, > Czech Republic. If you'd like to present at the meeting, contact the chai= rs or > reply to this message. I'd like to present on information-model. I'm also hoping to be asking for = WGLC before Prague. I'd also like some time to briefly present the BBF data model instantiation= of the information model. This can be considered a sort of "implementation= ". Hopefully, Mahesh can present on the YANG model. Barbara From nobody Mon Feb 25 06:40:26 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4715012D4EB; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 06:40:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.749 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 Xybf43KPSQIm; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 06:40:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-io1-xd32.google.com (mail-io1-xd32.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d32]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE4A4129532; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 06:40:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-io1-xd32.google.com with SMTP id p196so7605425iod.9; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 06:40:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=dF8CoTt2sDqaUk1/R8nkGLr409f/y2sPoTszKKifNbo=; b=k+fhoc3G+OMqcQOgksc4n5P7cYV0wrD7tryGPXAuxsGvpVgFvoZZmRnsW/lmTt+Vh/ MQWQtUfxrXN0A9PeqrgvRo9FIKfQws8RTpxQVLRokmBRUBvcGIiDVhgHxA2GapFii3x4 VOhS45eEZaxFFX4k2YsiuXfPBTCA6nXkeQcooEefQYjGcMpFezv2xfCLj8avflkcecBt 4PnWT9hJTuodCEaCGzIrEBYb0vVjzpZ6cJcWZF3BRv3YccdUWEdwRVPlRT/IB1k42JWx KDULmkQ5tT7jE1t3D1JYqFWX9tIpNwwlcjmlG1qFm3SZtZzkUW2DVdsv1g/S6LgdSCIp Qt2A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=dF8CoTt2sDqaUk1/R8nkGLr409f/y2sPoTszKKifNbo=; b=UCmPEaS3RwVHvon7spfqgFrCPBiylDreQ0GJKdvVOTPVjJFKbHNAvo9EbPFobRpkOx mSNh6iTRAIIL6L9qGutYU1dxGuiD+/zrW+9SP5iN2ng7cltZkr6WoJ6rNJeh65RzgbLF TCOAJMhgh2OOi2dfBLNFEySknqAkKK6okNza/DkWSRA2NG6nPKn/tuFcgndYp7dzWjYx 3cOwILCz7XfitMm84K51oL01ZQaCmTC3Rq9HA8v+PG/C/E4KTm8J+J4AjCfhFyXx+Gxk 3Y9jdheKzLk/kPGsPlL/NPJpncqRYKn/snT1exvyaB7Wk3raAbAI3ab2/KfrOp8WNjf+ ZSGQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuYyrCF2Zfoafc1KQu0wr6EbtzkfiQ3VfjM8PrQXlH7ZCKKE2fP2 fGf6Q+JZfoyVTE6dt+2Y1dtLo+DN5cfX/+73UrM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IZSgP9mSVySNozOvo2MS6+5cNaYci4pinG9nw5FXtNOUeOAcdGH+OubhQSiW1hhlpvw1kGCoulGpHQNg6E4fec= X-Received: by 2002:a6b:5006:: with SMTP id e6mr10079552iob.132.1551105621994; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 06:40:21 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0B96CE@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> In-Reply-To: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0B96CE@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> From: Donald Eastlake Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 09:40:11 -0500 Message-ID: To: "STARK, BARBARA H" Cc: Babel at IETF , babel-chairs Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Babel WG meeting in Prague X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 14:40:25 -0000 Hi Barbara, That's great. I'll put you down for a slot in the meeting. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 1424 Pro Shop Court, Davenport, FL 33896 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 9:09 AM STARK, BARBARA H wrote: > > > From: Donald Eastlake > > > > There is a Babel WG meeting tentative scheduled for Thursday morning > > 09:00 to 10:30 local time, 28 March, at the March IETF meeting in Prague, > > Czech Republic. If you'd like to present at the meeting, contact the chairs or > > reply to this message. > > I'd like to present on information-model. I'm also hoping to be asking for WGLC before Prague. > I'd also like some time to briefly present the BBF data model instantiation of the information model. This can be considered a sort of "implementation". > Hopefully, Mahesh can present on the YANG model. > > Barbara From nobody Mon Feb 25 07:18:02 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 532D412F1AB; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 07:18:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 IZwdMUnbqMqw; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 07:17:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qt1-x841.google.com (mail-qt1-x841.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::841]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A0E21276D0; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 07:17:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qt1-x841.google.com with SMTP id w4so10899793qtc.1; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 07:17:58 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=p/tFX76u7M3IJXRltqePa90zc8JV+mqtdPduupv1gaQ=; b=uZ4OL7tv02eGLNEpZze1YrJ8LJpAvknqlG6kpaaiPhmqx+6njExJ6rxj8mo5ZTdRa8 nPhRky0UXq+2BAa9j1+urFwuu1t57d3ohMrg6zfSxp2WCTn8CxW8cwppAkZk6csoF9mP dsQmVNgdL5mG5Dq7FAaHWoZyZZtWgrLdBs1vPM5Z4NKFO3Kkz/kaxdpsCxSz691ugXE5 2MjZm4/3XGKPa4Hlh5BbrTU0p1DiJ9nV6ehW3BpvN56FYmsn9gq4SkeQT/1we+aOHtak hVS/dtJUNQ8d4PBk6KJ8XHXDxmAfneItbwK3kaOSK/HqDs2MLkNyzAnnlUU2yuo2GoAX oAug== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=p/tFX76u7M3IJXRltqePa90zc8JV+mqtdPduupv1gaQ=; b=i7YbzzI4lEERrxc3tn+YhWonz6JLIk4xmoQXvs7tJoRcnrk7TLoen4kr/KoFrlCLeW 6etWxRc+DsXbGPmQ/3dQc3OTM5QA4xRPdOH8Lz+4B5CrblZusgswthXS9wdb1U1Fx3cj RZq70Ezer4Ef5vD7BgB4muwjceXd1VkWl3cmGb3k7mK1XnnrRS0bdixeU+bs2VoJD44f GC2OJi0Jo6adyuzd5rarNGT1yK4vSKd5vQOG7MWN5UgEzM8XhgykGbTKIh92zR0/AtVg 3v7va17Tmqmms0atzgtD3S76aEEBydybMJnsMNAnaEU1vlUQlrUjuC8tIa9/5v8qAATC JwMQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuZdaups9ORmbSKdTI7bceoP5WI/pQq87CFVRVpFwbZGa2ozDkOh mos1Hm0p8HTnEfaFiORCmcoqd1rkD9hjFTNdasQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IazM+ERfsmpOamHOvHDMbc0aTSDqOxM9SDaEQ12wgKfmm13P3ytzwG+xFscyek6R2KmbmSv2k7ZQJRsDmuG2NE= X-Received: by 2002:ac8:2e70:: with SMTP id s45mr13964265qta.376.1551107877957; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 07:17:57 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0B96CE@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> In-Reply-To: From: Dave Taht Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 07:17:46 -0800 Message-ID: To: Donald Eastlake Cc: "STARK, BARBARA H" , babel-chairs , Babel at IETF Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Babel WG meeting in Prague X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 15:18:01 -0000 I'd hoped to be able to have a report this ietf on deploying babel-hmac at some scale, but so far, no luck. Perhaps the next one. You'll find me in the cheap seats, in the back. On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 6:40 AM Donald Eastlake wrote: > > Hi Barbara, > > That's great. I'll put you down for a slot in the meeting. > > Thanks, > Donald > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) > 1424 Pro Shop Court, Davenport, FL 33896 USA > d3e3e3@gmail.com > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 9:09 AM STARK, BARBARA H wrote: > > > > > From: Donald Eastlake > > > > > > There is a Babel WG meeting tentative scheduled for Thursday morning > > > 09:00 to 10:30 local time, 28 March, at the March IETF meeting in Pra= gue, > > > Czech Republic. If you'd like to present at the meeting, contact the = chairs or > > > reply to this message. > > > > I'd like to present on information-model. I'm also hoping to be asking = for WGLC before Prague. > > I'd also like some time to briefly present the BBF data model instantia= tion of the information model. This can be considered a sort of "implementa= tion". > > Hopefully, Mahesh can present on the YANG model. > > > > Barbara > > _______________________________________________ > babel mailing list > babel@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht CTO, TekLibre, LLC http://www.teklibre.com Tel: 1-831-205-9740 From nobody Mon Feb 25 08:33:22 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97627130F29 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 08:33:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 FZL58M5LdZ_k for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 08:33:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.157.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9EF0130F14 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 08:33:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0083689.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0083689.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x1PFHEQi040049 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 10:24:23 -0500 Received: from alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp6.sbc.com [144.160.229.23]) by m0083689.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2qvgk93tu4-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 10:24:22 -0500 Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x1PFOMdL010692 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 10:24:22 -0500 Received: from zlp30487.vci.att.com (zlp30487.vci.att.com [135.47.91.176]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x1PFOGpK010570 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 10:24:16 -0500 Received: from zlp30487.vci.att.com (zlp30487.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp30487.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 31EE840002BE for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 15:24:16 +0000 (GMT) Received: from GAALPA1MSGHUBAC.ITServices.sbc.com (unknown [130.8.218.152]) by zlp30487.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTPS id 1FD9040002B8 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 15:24:16 +0000 (GMT) Received: from GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.5.84]) by GAALPA1MSGHUBAC.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.8.218.152]) with mapi id 14.03.0435.000; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 10:24:15 -0500 From: "STARK, BARBARA H" To: "babel@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: info-model: multiple instances of hmac/dtls for same interface Thread-Index: AdTNHfjauwV3VgeGRHKFzMScdSdRgQ== Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 15:24:14 +0000 Message-ID: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0B98A4@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [130.10.217.239] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-02-25_08:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1902250112 Archived-At: Subject: [babel] info-model: multiple instances of hmac/dtls for same interface X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 16:33:21 -0000 > > Do you prefer option 1 (to apply to all interfaces, list all > > interfaces) or option 2 (Boolean to apply to all interfaces)? >=20 > I think it's good to be able to say that a key applies to all interfaces,= especially > if the set of available interfaces can vary dynamically. I'm putting this "applies to all interfaces" Boolean into the model, and I'= m trying to figure out whether it should be possible to have multiple insta= nces if there is an instance with this flag set, and whether it should be p= ossible for an interface to be listed in multiple instances (when the flag = is false). In all cases, if "applies to all interfaces" is true, the list of interface= s inside the same object instance is ignored. Possibilities: 1. If there is an instance with the "apply to all" flag "true", then no oth= er instances are allowed; if there is no instance with "apply to all" flag "true", then an interface = is only allowed to be listed in one interface list. 2. Instances are additive. For HMAC: when a packet is received on an interf= ace, the HMAC keys of instances with ("apply to all" =3D "true" or this int= erface in its list) AND babel-hmac-verify =3D true AND babel-hmac-key-use-v= erify =3D true are used to verify the received packet. When a packet is sen= t on an interface, the HMAC keys of instances with ("apply to all" =3D "tru= e" or this interface in its list) AND babel-hmac-key-use-sign =3D true are = used to hash the sent packet. For HMAC, possibility 2 would be do-able, but maybe not needed? For DTLS, I= think it would be much harder to create a good rule, because of the dtls-c= ached-info and dtls-cert-prefer options (that influence handshaking message= s). It wouldn't work to have different settings in different instances that= apply to the same interface -- which would mean additional rules would be = needed to restrict different values of these parameters. Which gets complic= ated. For DTLS, I'd prefer to keep it simple with possibility 1. Thoughts? Barbara From nobody Mon Feb 25 10:22:56 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEAF1130F33; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 10:22:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 vgJG-LDxqs1M; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 10:22:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pf1-x432.google.com (mail-pf1-x432.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::432]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 222B9130F13; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 10:22:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pf1-x432.google.com with SMTP id n125so4879625pfn.5; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 10:22:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=nOg3B3z2IaD9V6SIEtx9NYfPjh5WpFnWxSHySa77Q/Y=; b=M9u0rSYI71aQAM3ypnxqL4+hztC6LJ9G5serWstikhEpCrnk8JYVMWIgCano2XDx4N ga12lAo/PN+fEBRV1YYKWrv3e/Yd8y9uQ3G42iSo6Dkxrn9xzrsSyLTsrLUarN8mQKJ5 V/wDTWQsJUnXS6wgJ8bP5tCfHN6JPnD4YIUFdOT9zUpyLm/tX4WJI7lkO+7rOi1LQrO8 Z2kUkhyClZxtU7LOqaAnWQZE6jnxMbctYsqFnBJ5tjrMgVgIlYi90eQiSB4Cz3EDqZBo LFFA20cUKYVJ/LPcfuOwtURp4qAc7igbdqJXQTQJL93bYI63UfP+Tr7EFjHfj0iwJgwW fZbg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=nOg3B3z2IaD9V6SIEtx9NYfPjh5WpFnWxSHySa77Q/Y=; b=Whd+Dd8Pk+0iFf94iqcs8NcPL7eEIHAStXfo0okojuNHllIdp9eD/aUCvl+05w+VDr MpZt4bejY49i/oFVvhFMHRo/wn8wZvW5nvRBd6ApYUfOia5ir86VVSlM1XEzv84vJcyk QlfzlwOetSk8Td7NOkXfUyDqze2GCyHlyin/JduHeffOfq1C8SfgwnnjN29EVU/9xkCX chOiTi16xVAt119qrtB3F1tcs3LM0IX/teL4PR5A1ykklpkHgvgTNkb5J1twTzPAzKyl 4ffH/Fj7AyM6ivTOzagmYQqzsrqwhd7q9k8LVUtWf4N02B9QcVEnjatqJ0ueCeggyXZi SWKQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuYXBILJ20J6fBAGDPNj52jwog9A63MC8+R1HUo/F3DsGVk7n2aw SWow5BlxKv+gpVxv6kR8ti0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IYI9ByHIEVwVb3nIXF5KwQYPg905r2KPiwohplQskuF0CUy02MW030hFG9e4vcyz7Y9B9ioBg== X-Received: by 2002:a63:9246:: with SMTP id s6mr407014pgn.349.1551118971486; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 10:22:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.33.123.214] ([66.170.99.1]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z15sm14816330pgc.25.2019.02.25.10.22.49 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 25 Feb 2019 10:22:49 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) From: Mahesh Jethanandani In-Reply-To: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0B96CE@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 10:22:49 -0800 Cc: Babel at IETF , babel-chairs Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <036F7423-C6B5-4C2F-89CF-91A2FDB25EF9@gmail.com> References: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0B96CE@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> To: "STARK, BARBARA H" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Babel WG meeting in Prague X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 18:22:54 -0000 Since Barbara has prompted me ... > On Feb 25, 2019, at 6:09 AM, STARK, BARBARA H wrote: >=20 >> From: Donald Eastlake >>=20 >> There is a Babel WG meeting tentative scheduled for Thursday morning >> 09:00 to 10:30 local time, 28 March, at the March IETF meeting in = Prague, >> Czech Republic. If you'd like to present at the meeting, contact the = chairs or >> reply to this message. >=20 > I'd like to present on information-model. I'm also hoping to be asking = for WGLC before Prague. > I'd also like some time to briefly present the BBF data model = instantiation of the information model. This can be considered a sort of = "implementation". > Hopefully, Mahesh can present on the YANG model. I will present an update to the YANG model, subject to when Barbara is = able to post an update to the info model, and I am able to post an = update to the YANG model which is based on the latest info model =F0=9F=98= =9C. >=20 > Barbara >=20 > _______________________________________________ > babel mailing list > babel@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel Mahesh Jethanandani mjethanandani@gmail.com From nobody Mon Feb 25 11:59:58 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EE2E130E7A; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 11:59:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.748 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 POo1A9wFmpWC; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 11:59:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-it1-x129.google.com (mail-it1-x129.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::129]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46477129A85; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 11:59:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-it1-x129.google.com with SMTP id w18so325754itj.4; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 11:59:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=1OUtaz87IVBrEooK/xiQYcFCiVF+/gHG1+9p5+JP978=; b=GrkO3LgnxPu4OTzpSJBCby38uosfE9ZDfG12eYwxTTEQTbJFSlpP5Y5NAQyovTw6dK CDmxp7yScT4dxAVUXtF1rgfI8qLaXyInwEJEVcP/2e62Jwez18EE5OoXhvOEFY4nsi2m F1ICj0hk11nC79a2JZSgSmLFZAmEtFiEj4TZEXBuqHxAwExfBFFvGLs0dokNq0yc+MkF XpqSfhxVVpovuTUzK3nM811iclMGfyiyi7A0ktQzjSCQVmdrj0pOYaiISWlUMiz3v9/n OHFA4RQq5LjjX07/mFABSsDb7xfIrF6gX2Ir0SXM0XrHnWo9BpWTK+9RbKW3TYASL78a eHJQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=1OUtaz87IVBrEooK/xiQYcFCiVF+/gHG1+9p5+JP978=; b=UNdxGyc/McrzhyVUzdD0KFqqvW0ILbpmCA3IfV4+CwG6nziZlnI8PBUgHnQrOciaBC E+JO7Laet1NGu8fpeYKM9r6j+/8oAD9rtvLB21lqnDqwiLmAFAzf+slCOdJYvwYFhZMp Lxx2iUOQfuBHSaPZcYB9E63DvDv0u2qZXBx8U5FvYKHz877mZ8WmN6JxpEWKK4U0WFH0 So4sAIagJdBNm41W+TBQJTiP+8r6crjCItoG17gAzmm5oLr7Y8jZz74w8zTs0mOU895R b7Kd6Vce6A8CHpnQrd0DNEofRk6VcRf3vk8TCIiC5kBtgLM+m6oeBj/qj8gfubAAlLxX lkIw== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAubmqvnwgPzOWTeT7wwBBNHiJWoGD1RaEw9P37zY2KXo54RWGDg+ KgPvFxmJ2Ez6jHiaCxMfPdJ2G9l8m3RLeQo7/aZ+fw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxY0bPMxdtcqRqCSmJdCzAnNnAMBNLjoAspL1Yt0WInbR189z4+7hmoBLJAnRETDUmCyMb4+grlbQsrTaY77Qg= X-Received: by 2002:a24:dd82:: with SMTP id t124mr379961itf.102.1551124793359; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 11:59:53 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0B96CE@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> <036F7423-C6B5-4C2F-89CF-91A2FDB25EF9@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <036F7423-C6B5-4C2F-89CF-91A2FDB25EF9@gmail.com> From: Donald Eastlake Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 14:59:42 -0500 Message-ID: To: Mahesh Jethanandani Cc: "STARK, BARBARA H" , Babel at IETF , babel-chairs Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004f82880582bd6268" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Babel WG meeting in Prague X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 19:59:56 -0000 --0000000000004f82880582bd6268 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks Mahesh. Donald =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 1424 Pro Shop Court, Davenport, FL 33896 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 1:22 PM Mahesh Jethanandani wrote: > Since Barbara has prompted me ... > > > On Feb 25, 2019, at 6:09 AM, STARK, BARBARA H wrote: > > > >> From: Donald Eastlake > >> > >> There is a Babel WG meeting tentative scheduled for Thursday morning > >> 09:00 to 10:30 local time, 28 March, at the March IETF meeting in > Prague, > >> Czech Republic. If you'd like to present at the meeting, contact the > chairs or > >> reply to this message. > > > > I'd like to present on information-model. I'm also hoping to be asking > for WGLC before Prague. > > I'd also like some time to briefly present the BBF data model > instantiation of the information model. This can be considered a sort of > "implementation". > > Hopefully, Mahesh can present on the YANG model. > > I will present an update to the YANG model, subject to when Barbara is > able to post an update to the info model, and I am able to post an update > to the YANG model which is based on the latest info model =F0=9F=98=9C. > > > > > Barbara > > > > _______________________________________________ > > babel mailing list > > babel@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel > > Mahesh Jethanandani > mjethanandani@gmail.com > > > > --0000000000004f82880582bd6268 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks Mahesh.

Donald
=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D
=C2=A0Donald E. Eastlake 3rd =C2=A0 +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
=C2= =A01424 Pro Shop Court, Davenport, FL 33896 USA
=C2=A0d3e3e3@gmail.com


On = Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 1:22 PM Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com> wrote:
Since Barbara has prompted me .= ..

> On Feb 25, 2019, at 6:09 AM, STARK, BARBARA H <bs7652@att.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Donald Eastlake
>>
>> There is a Babel WG meeting tentative scheduled for Thursday morni= ng
>> 09:00 to 10:30 local time, 28 March, at the March IETF meeting in = Prague,
>> Czech Republic. If you'd like to present at the meeting, conta= ct the chairs or
>> reply to this message.
>
> I'd like to present on information-model. I'm also hoping to b= e asking for WGLC before Prague.
> I'd also like some time to briefly present the BBF data model inst= antiation of the information model. This can be considered a sort of "= implementation".
> Hopefully, Mahesh can present on the YANG model.

I will present an update to the YANG model, subject to when Barbara is able= to post an update to the info model, and I am able to post an update to th= e YANG model which is based on the latest info model =F0=9F=98=9C.

>
> Barbara
>
> _______________________________________________
> babel mailing list
> babel@ietf.org=
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel

Mahesh Jethanandani
mjethanandani@= gmail.com



--0000000000004f82880582bd6268-- From nobody Mon Feb 25 20:49:20 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietf.org Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4A04129AA0 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 20:49:18 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.92.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <155115655893.10727.8226903757877862193.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 20:49:18 -0800 From: IETF Secretariat Archived-At: Subject: [babel] Milestones changed for babel WG X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 04:49:19 -0000 Changed milestone "IESG Submission of Babel Applicability draft (Informational)", resolved as "Done". URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/babel/about/ From nobody Mon Feb 25 20:59:49 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E73A130E70 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 20:59:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.749 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 RPHzWkjnrRVw for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 20:59:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-it1-x135.google.com (mail-it1-x135.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::135]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD39E130E6E for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 20:59:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-it1-x135.google.com with SMTP id v2so2102248ith.3 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 20:59:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=a+UBSpr8WKv2S6OL+JbDWNny3uEfulOMdHP55cH35jA=; b=tJ+ruXip9HfgDP0yPCv/KuSbKpUNA4sWuiiGaS/cou6j2Bye1anLuG3j//H0Ov+68F XfFGyNo2MWdK8FQvtE/ugc8GFpFCywXYoBmXb6GXzvpylPIDa0Da8d3zgiw4CiGDFPmH tQtkXMlVybkk+gj82j9l1VXP+WOxZzbhqeHAyeBCoL7UTvxRs8Bs97aC8qJZQPtYCmS2 lEr34f9Vw7hVd/t0EnNkGYOIbWyYK49cXp0ddZT2IKMsqZoS+QN+G1BQc8MlHPKnNMDV ViuWQ27lzHxmLBOwWHp6zYspxJiLYCUxrTlSDWvvXzPYNFkLvlIWFfHL6NfnLnYwkY/I i/yA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=a+UBSpr8WKv2S6OL+JbDWNny3uEfulOMdHP55cH35jA=; b=gDMkt6KCu9irflOnpixiJ+J+fBH2oK9yjJK6O4NLlk3QwhPmwyZjhx2vDK/szxEdyH NotP57gelqD8LSX5C90uWndqwd3L4G1sOzoP3qC7PI7peBRy6ORW9uAvtXcAjH2RWZwn b0an2IWxEt16DQfyNB1oCodUf8G+xZY2dk3DVeQZXYuZQsGpN31HIXbKT72yepaMwbLj VMVoRCXc9zxD4dIvhMBxjtIbmlNKvgYKNCvPvi+Fuw9DI+rDnRqJf7U8Dhk7nT3+wt+i icd74l1mmG5xpHfnEqsbjmhB8PyvUF9nbgkrhFrCWuR5S9vbyvpMfCyzdNjl+MlQRk6W 3Lkw== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAubWwedw4wYiGMJcIAsCHYIz+KCDOnmGjqynJUrDf/EV2u3ruCJe OBJ/sVuXd/HsNrnfgmnF6jGZQY3w//ECoyoEKBc3Ig== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwbFva7G2cQWAN/UL9HiAs/8tDx8LHtV8XvjLWiscqflEkv/lDhgN4WV/gFMMOzHfsnjIPShkZHjhZro2HuLaw= X-Received: by 2002:a24:dd82:: with SMTP id t124mr1514939itf.102.1551157185350; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 20:59:45 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <155115655893.10727.8226903757877862193.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <155115655893.10727.8226903757877862193.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> From: Donald Eastlake Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 23:59:34 -0500 Message-ID: To: Babel at IETF Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000611f00582c4ed5d" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Milestones changed for babel WG X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 04:59:48 -0000 --0000000000000611f00582c4ed5d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" I had forgoten to update the milestone status when publication was requested for this draft. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 1424 Pro Shop Court, Davenport, FL 33896 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 11:49 PM IETF Secretariat < ietf-secretariat-reply@ietf.org> wrote: > Changed milestone "IESG Submission of Babel Applicability draft > (Informational)", resolved as "Done". > > URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/babel/about/ > > _______________________________________________ > babel mailing list > babel@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel > --0000000000000611f00582c4ed5d Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I had forgoten to update the milestone status when publica= tion was requested for this draft.

Thanks,Donald
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=C2=A0Donald E. Eastlake 3rd =C2=A0 +1-50= 8-333-2270 (cell)
=C2=A01424 Pro Shop Court, Davenport, FL 33896 USA
= =C2=A0d3e3e3@gmail.co= m


On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 11:49 PM IETF Secretaria= t <ietf-secretariat-r= eply@ietf.org> wrote:
Changed milestone "IESG Submission of Babel Applicability= draft
(Informational)", resolved as "Done".

URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/babel/about/
_______________________________________________
babel mailing list
babel@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel
--0000000000000611f00582c4ed5d-- From nobody Wed Feb 27 13:56:27 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABCF6130E96 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 13:56:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=toke.dk 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 YL-iGQzQtl9e for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 13:56:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [52.28.52.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DF9E130E5F for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 13:56:23 -0800 (PST) From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1551304580; bh=xSQRFiNfNK7lWRW/JJmEpuEOCcKJRMk7GoF0F7hVKgc=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=cUkrHQ2ADcf6mQwv/RGcG7ZDCUf4asGVujr9j4Rg7ynrMhOgK9+pyGepyuIpGK18r J/+4VjlvN6+nJ9CWkUliojfG6VUhqcPGgYy15iiPR/qLipw0ondM2NT6M8H6z8iZPu BcLiOvXBv/bEggYFEgzDacUI9EImaW/KdxBx5PX2Op8CyihU8/6JeG/YE/TG07akPI UCBtgTJn8x0eT1s+rMgz0MNi9j01dq04Ndbr3OoIoCV5Sgldf6aAcN1cEPKP/UZ6f9 EuQ+vymNBkNuLzUfucd/MVsw1i15dNFhMmM2LKFjvtvUyRuN3LU/cZTPyrE3Zym5Fx 4uRt01pKFUMrw== To: "STARK\, BARBARA H" , "babel\@ietf.org" In-Reply-To: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0B98A4@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> References: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E0B98A4@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 22:56:19 +0100 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <87mumgnbek.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] info-model: multiple instances of hmac/dtls for same interface X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 21:56:26 -0000 "STARK, BARBARA H" writes: >> > Do you prefer option 1 (to apply to all interfaces, list all >> > interfaces) or option 2 (Boolean to apply to all interfaces)? >> >> I think it's good to be able to say that a key applies to all interfaces, especially >> if the set of available interfaces can vary dynamically. > > I'm putting this "applies to all interfaces" Boolean into the model, and I'm trying to figure out whether it should be possible to have multiple instances if there is an instance with this flag set, and whether it should be possible for an interface to be listed in multiple instances (when the flag is false). > In all cases, if "applies to all interfaces" is true, the list of interfaces inside the same object instance is ignored. > > Possibilities: > 1. If there is an instance with the "apply to all" flag "true", then no other instances are allowed; > if there is no instance with "apply to all" flag "true", then an interface is only allowed to be listed in one interface list. > 2. Instances are additive. For HMAC: when a packet is received on an interface, the HMAC keys of instances with ("apply to all" = "true" or this interface in its list) AND babel-hmac-verify = true AND babel-hmac-key-use-verify = true are used to verify the received packet. When a packet is sent on an interface, the HMAC keys of instances with ("apply to all" = "true" or this interface in its list) AND babel-hmac-key-use-sign = true are used to hash the sent packet. > > For HMAC, possibility 2 would be do-able, but maybe not needed? So consider a setup where you have N interfaces that all share the same key(s), and where one of those interfaces (let's call it X) uses an additional key (because that is where you keep your dev box, or something). In this case we'd probably want it to be possible to keep the shared keys in a "global" instance, and have an additional instance attached to only interface X. -Toke