From bew@cisco.com  Tue Jan 12 14:36:04 2010
Return-Path: <bew@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: msec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: msec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C923C3A6877 for <msec@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:36:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yqkY7Z-ljwhP for <msec@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:36:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B735E3A683F for <msec@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:36:03 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-4.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEAB+ITEurRN+J/2dsb2JhbADBdYkWCYtVAoJEgWoE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,264,1262563200"; d="scan'208";a="73517678"
Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.223.137]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Jan 2010 22:36:01 +0000
Received: from dhcp-128-107-163-107.cisco.com (dhcp-128-107-163-107.cisco.com [128.107.163.107]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o0CMa10I007229 for <msec@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:36:01 GMT
Message-Id: <4727FE63-2D8A-44D7-9153-79D0F8D5550B@cisco.com>
From: Brian Weis <bew@cisco.com>
To: msec@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:35:58 -0800
References: <201001122105.WAA10704@TR-Sys.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
Subject: [MSEC] Fwd: draft-ietf-msec-ipsec-group-counter-modes-04
X-BeenThere: msec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multicast Security List <msec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/msec>, <mailto:msec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/msec>
List-Post: <mailto:msec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:msec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/msec>, <mailto:msec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:36:04 -0000

Alfred H=CEnes reviewed this MSEC WG draft, but had trouble posting to =20=

the list. His comments are attached.

Brian

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Alfred H=CEnes <ah@TR-Sys.de>
> Date: January 12, 2010 1:05:19 PM PST
> To: mcgrew@cisco.com, bew@cisco.com
> Cc: msec@ietf.org
> Subject: draft-ietf-msec-ipsec-group-counter-modes-04
>
> Hello,
> one nit and one DISCUSS for draft-ietf-msec-ipsec-group-counter-=20
> modes-04:
>
>
> The easy one first:  In the last paragraph of Section 2,
> an indefinite article is missing; please insert it:
>
>   [...], where single IPsec Security Association (SA) is used [...]
> ---            vvv
>   [...], where a single IPsec Security Association (SA) is used [...]
>
>
> DISCUSS:
>
> There's a proliferation of documents that specify black-box exchanges
> of the AES with other block ciphers with compatible interface for all
> security protocols standardized in the IETF.
>
> In the interest of proper layering in the "crypto-toolbox",
> simplifying the expected document set, and reducing the load on the
> I-D approval and RFC publication processes, I strongly suggest to
> immediately generalize your memo to <any> "AES-like" block cipher.
>
> If that strategy is not followed, you can expect to have to deal with
> follow-up documents for Camellia, SEED, ..., that do not add any new
> information to the present draft.
>
> The document title already raises this expectation.
>
> The Abstract needlessly specializes to AES.
>
> In Section 1, some of the references to given are already neutral
> regarding the cipher, inparticular RFC 2386 is that for CTR mode.
>
> I suggest to outline the general framework of using counter modes
> with a block cipher primitive and instantiate that with the AES
> examples and related references.
>
> Every detail given in subsequent sections is not specific to the AES
> but immediately generalizes to any block cipher with a 128-bit block
> size.  That should be made explicit, IMO.
>
> In Section 2, it almost suffices to simply  s/AES/block cipher/g .
> In Sections 3..6 and Appendix A, "AES" does not even appear in the =20
> text.
>
> Appendix B with AES-GCM as an example is perfectly ok.
>
>
> Kind regards,
>  Alfred H=CEnes.
>
> --=20
>
> +------------------------=20
> +--------------------------------------------+
> | TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-=20
> Phys.  |
> | Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: =20
> -18         |
> | D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  ah@TR-=20
> Sys.de                     |
> +------------------------=20
> +--------------------------------------------+
>


--=20
Brian Weis
Router/Switch Security Group, ARTG, Cisco Systems
Telephone: +1 408 526 4796
Email: bew@cisco.com




From john.mattsson@ericsson.com  Sat Jan 30 09:32:03 2010
Return-Path: <john.mattsson@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: msec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: msec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5231B3A68B7 for <msec@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 Jan 2010 09:32:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.249
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Buk0C+Rpistf for <msec@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 Jan 2010 09:32:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailgw5.ericsson.se (mailgw5.ericsson.se [193.180.251.36]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E30E3A6827 for <msec@ietf.org>; Sat, 30 Jan 2010 09:32:01 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb24-b7c64ae000005cb7-e8-4b646d2b77ed
Received: from esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw5.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id EF.DE.23735.B2D646B4; Sat, 30 Jan 2010 18:32:27 +0100 (CET)
Received: from esealmw121.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.200.80]) by esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);  Sat, 30 Jan 2010 18:32:03 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 18:32:03 +0100
Message-ID: <BB048F7D0346F841AA7BEC83644EB78D9F7250@esealmw121.eemea.ericsson.se>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: Draft update: draft-mattsson-mikey-ticket-01
Thread-Index: AcqhyVEe70JDiSs8TIGlO4Jx0Mzihg==
From: "John Mattsson" <john.mattsson@ericsson.com>
To: <msec@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jan 2010 17:32:03.0585 (UTC) FILETIME=[22FF6F10:01CAA1D2]
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: Rolf Blom J <rolf.j.blom@ericsson.com>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eva_Fogelstr=F6m?= <eva.fogelstrom@ericsson.com>
Subject: [MSEC] Draft update: draft-mattsson-mikey-ticket-01
X-BeenThere: msec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multicast Security List <msec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/msec>, <mailto:msec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/msec>
List-Post: <mailto:msec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:msec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/msec>, <mailto:msec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 17:32:03 -0000

Dear all,

We have submitted an updated version of the draft "MIKEY-TICKET: An =
Additional Mode of Key Distribution in Multimedia Internet KEYing =
(MIKEY)". This version is intended for IETF last call.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mattsson-mikey-ticket-01

Updates since the 00 version includes:

- status changed to informational
- added a notation (') for forked keys
- added figure illustrating the trust model
- changes to the key derivation (length fields and app id) and MAC =
coverage=20
- removed MPK in CSB update
- added support for 256-bit keys
- editorials.

Comments/recommendations would be appreciated.

Best regards,

   John Mattsson