Subject: [Hipsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis-17.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 11:25:58 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Host Identity Protocol Working Group of the IETF.

        Title           : Host Identity Protocol Version 2 (HIPv2)
        Authors         : Robert Moskowitz
                          Tobias Heer
                          Petri Jokela
                          Thomas R. Henderson
	Filename        : draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis-17.txt
	Pages           : 128
	Date            : 2014-09-05

Abstract:
   This document specifies the details of the Host Identity Protocol
   (HIP).  HIP allows consenting hosts to securely establish and
   maintain shared IP-layer state, allowing separation of the identifier
   and locator roles of IP addresses, thereby enabling continuity of
   communications across IP address changes.  HIP is based on a Diffie-
   Hellman key exchange, using public key identifiers from a new Host
   Identity namespace for mutual peer authentication.  The protocol is
   designed to be resistant to denial-of-service (DoS) and man-in-the-
   middle (MitM) attacks.  When used together with another suitable
   security protocol, such as the Encapsulated Security Payload (ESP),
   it provides integrity protection and optional encryption for upper-
   layer protocols, such as TCP and UDP.

   This document obsoletes RFC 5201 and addresses the concerns raised by
   the IESG, particularly that of crypto agility.  It also incorporates
   lessons learned from the implementations of RFC 5201.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis-17

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis-17

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: Tom Henderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 11:45:55 -0700

The new RFC5201-bis [1] draft implements the following changes, 
discussed on the list:

    o  Clarify that receipt of user data in state CLOSING (Table 7)
       results in transition to I1-SENT

    o  Add academic reference for the first mention of the RSA algorithm

    o  As part of comment resolution on use of NULL encryption, note that
       use of a NULL HIP CIPHER is only to be used when debugging and
       testing the HIP protocol.  This only pertains to the ENCRYPTED
       parameter, which is optional; in practice, if encryption is not
       desired, better to just not encrypt the Host ID.

I believe that the open issue on NULL encryption as a MTI (DISCUSS) on 
RFC5202-bis [2] (also updated today) is closed now, and the following 
items remain on RFC5201-bis:

1) proposal to address possibility of a plaintext attack:

http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/hip/trac/ticket/42

I am not sure whether there is support or a concrete text proposal to 
change this?

2) proposal to add support for 2048-bit DHE (discussed on the list this 
week)

http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/hip/trac/ticket/46

The current proposal is to add support for this in the next version, 
unless further comments are received.

3) update Appendix C example packet

http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/hip/trac/ticket/50

4) tracking considerations for HIP

http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/hip/trac/ticket/47

Stephen most recently said:

"However, I won't press this if you don't wanna go there now - it'd
be a large enough change and would probably take time.

I'll clear this one and if the WG want they can decide to pursue
that goal."

So perhaps this should serve as a last call on this issue--does anyone 
in the WG want to pursue a change in this area?

5) I just noticed this suggestion from Barry Leiba and will pick this up 
in version 18:.

In the IANA Considerations, similar to what was done for R1_COUNTER, I 
suggest
this:

OLD
       A new value (579) for a new Parameter Type HIP_CIPHER should be
       added, with reference to this specification.  This Parameter Type
       functionally replaces the HIP_TRANSFORM Parameter Type (value 577)
       which can be left in the table with existing reference to
       [RFC5201].
NEW
       A new value (579) for a new Parameter Type HIP_CIPHER should be
       added, with reference to this specification.  This Parameter Type
       functionally replaces the HIP_TRANSFORM Parameter Type (value 577)
       which can be left in the table with existing reference to
       [RFC5201].  For clarity, we recommend that the name for the
       value 577 be changed from "HIP_TRANSFORM" to "HIP_TRANSFORM
       (v1 only)".
END

- Tom

[1] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis-17.txt
[2] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5202-bis-07.txt

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2014 11:25:42 -0400

It looks like the latest rev of 5201-bis does not address the gen-art review comments nor Francis Dupont's comments, and I haven't seen any follow-up discussion on Francis' comments.   What do the authors believe the status of these two comment threads is?

---

From: Tom Henderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2014 08:37:18 -0700

On 09/06/2014 08:25 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> It looks like the latest rev of 5201-bis does not address the gen-art
> review comments nor Francis Dupont's comments, and I haven't seen any
> follow-up discussion on Francis' comments.   What do the authors
> believe the status of these two comment threads is?
>

Ted,

I believe that there is only one open issue left from the Gen-Art 
review, regarding possible plaintext attacks:

The list discussion on this issue leans against making any change; see 
the last message of this thread:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hipsec/current/msg03903.html

I think I previously handled all of the other comments; if I missed any, 
please point them out.

I have tried to contact Francis a couple of times regarding 
clarification of his comments and have not seen a reply.  This is 
tracked in issue:

http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/hip/trac/ticket/49

I'm cc'ing both Tom Taylor and Francis for any further clarifications.

- Tom

---

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2014 07:17:04 -0400

I'm happy with the outcome. The list discussion addressed the issue. I 
believe the outcome is: "The plaintext attack is resistible, not a real 
problem, and need not be addressed in the document."

Tom Taylor

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:37:49 +0300

Hi Tom (Henderson),

Jari, Brian, and Ted still have discusses on this document. Could you
please summarize for each of them the status of this draft with respect
to their particular comments?

Thanks,

Gonzalo

On 07/09/2014 2:17 PM, Tom Taylor wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
>

---

From: Tom Henderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 22:20:34 -0700

> to their particular comments?

Gonzalo, the most recent status on this draft was posted to the HIP list 
in this message:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hipsec/current/msg03942.html

Since then, it seems that Jari and Brian have cleared their discusses. 
  I believe that the IANA issues have been mostly resolved (Ted's 
discuss).  Ted's discuss was against version -14 of the draft, while we 
are at version -17 now.  There is a lingering comment that I haven't 
picked up from Barry (item 5 in the above email) that pertains to IANA 
text; I plan to publish those in version -18.

I could probably put out a version -18 shortly that may resolve all of 
the open issues, but it just requires that I generate a new Appendix C 
example packet.  I'll try to get to that in the next day or two.

- Tom

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 15:15:26 +0300

Hi Tom,

Can you respond on the Gen-ART review thread? I’d love to clear my discuss, but I have not seen a response yet… and it might be that your newer draft version have already taken all this into account.

Jari

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 15:33:58 +0300

2nd response - Gonzalo explained that Tom was already ok (and I should have seen this from below… not sure why I didn’t see the original e-mail). Anyway, I have cleared :-)

Jari