Subject: RE: [Ipsec] extraction of CHILD SA keys from the key material

From: "Shekhar Kshirsagar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 22:26:18 -0800

It seems correct as per the rules on page 32/33:

	"Keying material MUST be taken from the expanded KEYMAT in the
   	following order:

      All keys for SAs carrying data from the initiator to the responder
      are taken before SAs going in the reverse direction.

      If multiple IPsec protocols are negotiated, keying material is
      taken in the order in which the protocol headers will appear in
      the encapsulated packet.

      If a single protocol has both encryption and authentication keys,
      the encryption key is taken from the first octets of KEYMAT and
      the authentication key is taken from the next octets."

Shekhar

________________________________________
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jyothi
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 9:54 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Ipsec] extraction of CHILD SA keys from the key material

Hi,

I would like to know  the order of extraction of CHILD SA keys from the key material(KEYMAT) in case ESPwith AUTH and AH .

As per section 2.17 draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-17,

(      If multiple IPsec protocols are negotiated, keying material is
      taken in the order in which the protocol headers will appear in
      the encapsulated packet.)

I would like whether the following order is right or not.

Initiator side:
        
        KEYMAT = { outbound AH key | outbound ESP encryption key | outbound ESP auth key | 

                        inbound AH key | inbound ESP encryption key | inbound ESP auth key }

Responder side:

        KEYMAT = { |inbound AH key | inbound ESP encryption key | inbound ESP auth key |
                outbound AH key | outbound ESP encryption key | outbound ESP auth key
                              }

Awaiting your valuable responses.

Thanks in advance,
Jyothi 

_______________________________________________
Ipsec mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 10:49:29 +0200

Hi all

I have two questions regarding Hash-and-URL.  I've read the IKEv2 draft 
and the PKI4Ipsec draft.

1. Where is this HTTP server that holds the certificates supposed to be?
2. How does the IKE peer know the URL?

Is the answer to these questions outside the scope of both working 
groups?

Is the webserver supposed to be on the IPsec peer?  That won't be 
possible for the client-to-gateway scenario.

Is the webserver supposed to be on the CA?  A special-purpose web 
server connected to the CA?  Is there some extension for X509 that 
allows the URL to be part of the certificate?

Thanks.

Yoav

---

From: Paul Hoffman / VPNC <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 09:01:37 -0800

At 10:49 AM +0200 12/21/04, Yoav Nir wrote:
>I have two questions regarding Hash-and-URL.  I've read the IKEv2 
>draft and the PKI4Ipsec draft.
>

Anywhere. This is a local decision for the gateway operator.

>2. How does the IKE peer know the URL?

In many cases, they will be hand-typed in. In others, the IPsec 
gateway itself will host the HTTP server that has the certs, so they 
can be automatically generated.

>Is the answer to these questions outside the scope of both working groups?

Yes.

>possible for the client-to-gateway scenario.

Yes, and yes. It is likely that a gateway can use hash-and-URL, and a 
client use the normal cert.

>Is the webserver supposed to be on the CA?

Probably not.

>   A special-purpose web server connected to the CA?

Probably.

>   Is there some extension for X509 that allows the URL to be part of 
>the certificate?

That has not yet been specified. We want to see if anyone even uses 
this before trying to change PKIX.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Ravi Kumar <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 10:15:57 +0530

HTTP Server could be anywhere. It can be either on CA server, IKE peer or
any where. IKE peer should provide the complete URL.

I would expect that the URL is one  configuration parameter in the IKE peer.

Regards
Ravi

Yoav Nir wrote:
> Is the webserver supposed to be on the CA?  A special-purpose web server 
> connected to the CA?  Is there some extension for X509 that allows the 
> URL to be part of the certificate?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Yoav
> 
>