Subject: [ippm] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-05: (with DISCUSS)

From: "Alissa Cooper" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 11:01:30 -0800

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-05: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

There seems to be a bit of a disconnect between this text in 3.2:

"As specified in Section 3.4. , the Checksum Complement should only be
used in unauthenticated mode."

and this text in 3.4.1:

"A Checksum Complement MAY be used when authentication is enabled. In
   this case an intermediate entity can timestamp test packets and
   update their Checksum Complement field without modifying the HMAC."

I can see why not to use the checksum complement in encrypted mode, but
don't see why it can't be used in authenticated mode for TWAMP.

---

From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 14:36:49 -0500

I think you're right Alissa, the text in 3.2 should be made consistent
and mention that authenticated mode is allowed. 

ok Tal?
Al

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:[email-masked]]
...

---

From: Tal Mizrahi <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 07:14:38 +0000

Agreed.

Best regards,
Tal.

>From: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 9:37 PM
>To: Alissa Cooper; The IESG
>Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
>[email-masked]
>Subject: RE: Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-05:
>(with DISCUSS)
>
>I think you're right Alissa, the text in 3.2 should be made consistent and
>mention that authenticated mode is allowed.
>
>ok Tal?
>Al
>
>> I can see why not to use the checksum complement in encrypted mode,
>> but don't see why it can't be used in authenticated mode for TWAMP.
>>
>>
>>