From prvs=36691351c=acee@redback.com Sat May 2 12:43:33 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A66E13A67ED; Sat, 2 May 2009 12:43:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.102, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_56=0.6] 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 e0OeiPdsdron; Sat, 2 May 2009 12:43:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mgate.redback.com (mgate.redback.com [155.53.3.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CBAD3A67EC; Sat, 2 May 2009 12:43:32 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.40,283,1239001200"; d="scan'208,217";a="1389599" Received: from prattle.redback.com ([155.53.12.9]) by mgate.redback.com with ESMTP; 02 May 2009 12:44:57 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3242B494A51; Sat, 2 May 2009 12:44:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (prattle [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 24005-07; Sat, 2 May 2009 12:44:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6???1] (unknown [155.53.154.39]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB456494A45; Sat, 2 May 2009 12:44:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <21F35F03-53CB-4B0F-9397-685BC4BAB1D7@redback.com> References: <4B7DAC3FEFD35D4A96BDD0116990501413B25160@zrtphxm1.corp.nortel.com> <21F35F03-53CB-4B0F-9397-685BC4BAB1D7@redback.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-13-993287382 Message-Id: <2699DCFE-7839-4565-A17E-6DD893AA6A98@redback.com> From: Acee Lindem Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 15:44:52 -0400 To: IESG X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1) Cc: OSPF List Subject: Re: [OSPF] Changes to OSPFv3 MIB I-D from MIB doctor review X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 May 2009 19:44:45 -0000 --Apple-Mail-13-993287382 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Esteemed Members of the IESG, We've completed the MIB doctor review and given the WG the opportunity to review the attendant changes. We are now again requesting standards track publication. Here is a URL link for your convenience: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-mib-14.txt I've rerun the idnits tool to assure the updated draft passes: idnits 2.11.11 tmp/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-mib-14.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- No issues found here. Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id- guidelines.txt: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- No issues found here. Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- No issues found here. Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) No issues found here. No nits found. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- Thanks, Acee and Abhay On Apr 20, 2009, at 8:58 AM, Acee Lindem wrote: > OSPF WG, > Dan has provided a list of changes to the OSPFv3 MIB during the MIB > doctor review. Dave, Abhay, and I decided on a short review period > for these changes before we move forward. Given the amount of work > and review we've put into this document, we're going to be very > careful as to what comments we accept. Please post any comments on > the latest version (-14) to this list by Tuesday, April 28th, 2009. > > Thanks Joan, Dan, and Vishwas for all the hard work during the MIB > doctor review, > Acee > > On Apr 19, 2009, at 12:17 PM, Daniel Joyal wrote: > >> The following changes were made to draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-mib >> between revision 12 and revision 14 based on comments >> from the MIB doctor review. >> >> 1. Updated boilerplate to latest version. >> 2. Renamed ospfv3Compliance to ospfv3FullCompliance >> and added ospfv3ReadOnlyCompliance. >> 3. Expanded description of ospfv3CfgNbrTable >> 4. Move restrictions on InetAddress and InetAddressType >> to the Conformance Section. >> 5. Remove StorageType object from ospfv3HostTable. >> 6. Rename Ospfv3LsidTC to Ospfv3LsIdTC for >> consistency with other TCs. >> 7. Added DEFVAL clause to more writable objects. >> 8. Added more Reference clauses. >> 9. Changed ospfv3AreaNssaTranslatorStabInt to >> ospfv3AreaNssaTranslatorStabInterval. >> 10. Added reference to RFC 3413 for fine-grain >> control of notification enabling and disabling >> in description of ospfv3NotificationEnable object. >> 11. For objects with a syntax of TruthValue, added >> text in the Description clause to descibed what >> a value of true(1) means. >> 12. Changed objects with syntax of RowStatus to >> have RowStatus in the object name. >> 13. Changed ospfv3AdminStat to ospfv3AdminStatus. >> 14. Some object's syntax changed from signed integer >> to unsigned integer. >> 15. Removed last sentence in Description clause for >> ospfv3PacketSrc object. >> 16. Use DISPLAY-HINT of "d" rather than "d-0" throughout >> the MIB. >> 17. In graceful restart objects, changed "ExitRc" to >> "ExitReason". >> >> -Dan >> > --Apple-Mail-13-993287382 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Esteemed Members of the = IESG,
We've completed the MIB doctor review and given the WG the = opportunity to review the attendant changes. We are now again requesting = standards track publication. Here is a URL link for your = convenience:


I've rerun the idnits tool to assure the = updated draft passes:

idnits = 2.11.11=A0

tmp/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-mib-14.txt:=

=A0=A0Checking boilerplate required by RFC = 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
=A0=A0-------------------------------------------= ---------------------------------

=A0=A0 =A0 No = issues found here.

=A0=A0Checking nits = according to http://www.ietf.org/i= etf/1id-guidelines.txt:
=A0=A0------------------------------= ----------------------------------------------

=A0= =A0 =A0 No issues found here.

=A0=A0Checking = nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Chec= klist.html:
=A0=A0------------------------------------------= ----------------------------------

=A0=A0 =A0 = No issues found here.

=A0=A0Miscellaneous = warnings:
=A0=A0------------------------------------------------= ----------------------------

=A0=A0 =A0 No = issues found here.

=A0=A0Checking references = for intended status: Proposed = Standard
=A0=A0-------------------------------------------------= ---------------------------

=A0=A0 =A0 (See = RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative = references
=A0=A0 =A0 to lower-maturity documents in = RFCs)

=A0=A0 =A0 No issues found = here.

=A0=A0 =A0 No nits = found.
---------------------------------------------------------= -----------------------

Thanks,
A= cee and Abhay
On Apr 20, 2009, at 8:58 AM, Acee Lindem = wrote:

OSPF WG,=A0
Dan has provided a list of = changes to the OSPFv3 MIB during the MIB doctor review. Dave, Abhay, and = I decided on a short review period for these changes before we move = forward. Given the amount of work and review we've put into this = document, we're going to be very careful as to what comments we accept. = Please post any comments on the latest version (-14) to this list by = Tuesday, April 28th, 2009.=A0

Thanks Joan, Dan, and = Vishwas for all the hard work during the MIB doctor = review,
Acee=A0

On Apr 19, 2009, at 12:17 PM, = Daniel Joyal wrote:

The = following changes were made to draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-mib =
between revision 12 and revision 14 = based on comments
from the = MIB doctor review.

1. = Updated boilerplate to latest version.
2. Renamed ospfv3Compliance to = ospfv3FullCompliance
=A0=A0=A0 = and added ospfv3ReadOnlyCompliance.
3. Expanded description of ospfv3CfgNbrTable =
4. Move restrictions on InetAddress = and InetAddressType
=A0=A0=A0 = to the Conformance Section.
5. = Remove StorageType object from ospfv3HostTable.
6. Rename Ospfv3LsidTC to Ospfv3LsIdTC = for
=A0=A0=A0 consistency = with other TCs.
7. Added = DEFVAL clause to more writable objects.
8. Added more Reference clauses.
9. Changed ospfv3AreaNssaTranslatorStabInt = to
=A0=A0=A0 = ospfv3AreaNssaTranslatorStabInterval.
10. Added reference to RFC 3413 for fine-grain =
=A0=A0=A0=A0 control of notification = enabling and disabling
=A0=A0=A0= =A0 in description of ospfv3NotificationEnable object.
11. For objects with a syntax of TruthValue, = added
=A0=A0=A0=A0 text in = the Description clause to descibed what
=A0=A0=A0=A0 a value of true(1) means.
12. Changed objects with syntax of RowStatus = to
=A0=A0=A0=A0 have = RowStatus in the object name.
13. Changed ospfv3AdminStat to ospfv3AdminStatus. =
14. Some object's syntax changed = from signed integer
=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0 to unsigned integer.
15. = Removed last sentence in Description clause for
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ospfv3PacketSrc object. =
16. Use DISPLAY-HINT of "d" rather = than "d-0" throughout
=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0 the MIB.
17. In = graceful restart objects, changed "ExitRc" to
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 "ExitReason".

-Dan

=


= --Apple-Mail-13-993287382-- From prvs=3672c069c=mukul@uwm.edu Sun May 3 09:15:15 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 293F328C24B for ; Sun, 3 May 2009 09:15:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.5 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.099, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 bDYFoPNohtme for ; Sun, 3 May 2009 09:15:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ip2mta.uwm.edu (ip2mta.uwm.edu [129.89.7.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5704D28C26A for ; Sun, 3 May 2009 09:15:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta01.pantherlink.uwm.edu ([129.89.7.81]) by ip2mta.uwm.edu with ESMTP; 03 May 2009 11:16:38 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mta01.pantherlink.uwm.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC520B2000C; Sun, 3 May 2009 11:16:38 -0500 (CDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mta01.pantherlink.uwm.edu Received: from mta01.pantherlink.uwm.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta01.pantherlink.uwm.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rmM08BWIOYWe; Sun, 3 May 2009 11:16:38 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mail02.pantherlink.uwm.edu (mail02.pantherlink.uwm.edu [129.89.7.86]) by mta01.pantherlink.uwm.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C73B4B20001; Sun, 3 May 2009 11:16:38 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 11:16:38 -0500 (CDT) From: Mukul Goyal To: ospf@ietf.org Message-ID: <2098891752.367371241367398721.JavaMail.root@mail02.pantherlink.uwm.edu> In-Reply-To: <1138811511.364341241366278726.JavaMail.root@mail02.pantherlink.uwm.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [129.89.7.92] X-Mailer: Zimbra 5.0.15_GA_2851.RHEL4_64 (ZimbraWebClient - [unknown] (Win)/5.0.15_GA_2851.RHEL4_64) X-Authenticated-User: mukul@uwm.edu Subject: [OSPF] Group pacing delay X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 May 2009 16:15:34 -0000 Hi I apologize for this out-of-scope query. I am confused regarding the use of group pacing timers implemented in Cisco routers. This timer specifies "the interval at which LSAs are collected into a group and refreshed, checksummed, or aged". One of the objectives is "to improve the LSA packing density for the refreshes in large topologies", which I understand to be reducing the number of LSAs that are refreshed together, i.e. reducing the chances of LSA refresh storms. The way I understand group pacing timer to be is that the firing of this timer allows LSA ages to be increased and if some of the self-originated LSAs have reached the max age (or will reach the max age before the next firing of the timer), they are refreshed. Since most routers do not originate too many LSAs, the group pacing delay value seems to be important only for area/AS border routers that do originate multiple LSAs. I will appreciate it if a knowledgable person could confirm/correct the above (off-list if considered more appropriate). Regards Mukul Goyal From erblichs@earthlink.net Sun May 3 21:12:48 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 204313A63D3 for ; Sun, 3 May 2009 21:12:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.892 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.892 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.707, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 jwVt5IyrRppM for ; Sun, 3 May 2009 21:12:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A505C3A6950 for ; Sun, 3 May 2009 21:12:44 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=FRxmXbGpdC7z8BE7fEPh6j5ngdvYhW//tW3mo1H5pxV8xV06Ibsxw1++8fkWYas5; h=Received:Cc:Message-Id:From:To:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:References:X-Mailer:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [98.234.127.54] (helo=[10.0.1.9]) by elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1M0pZB-0006bD-Qo; Mon, 04 May 2009 00:14:10 -0400 Message-Id: <49761D10-E54C-4251-9139-697AF3BE8445@earthlink.net> From: Mitchell Erblich To: Mukul Goyal In-Reply-To: <2098891752.367371241367398721.JavaMail.root@mail02.pantherlink.uwm.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 21:14:08 -0700 References: <2098891752.367371241367398721.JavaMail.root@mail02.pantherlink.uwm.edu> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-ELNK-Trace: 074f60c55517ea841aa676d7e74259b7b3291a7d08dfec79a71790719bcb8f1fcb12e7dde5dcba66350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 98.234.127.54 Cc: ospf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OSPF] Group pacing delay X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 04:12:48 -0000 Hi, I may be in the minority of this, but this is how I see it. The grouping of LSAs allows a single interrupt per set of LSAs. Thus, if you could group 50 LSAs within a single packet, you have removed the processing overhead associated with 49 interrupts. Later systems can implement polling to decrease the interrupt load processing. Secondly, grouping the LSAs allows one to process only 1 IP header per set of LSAs. In addition, if more than 1 LSA would force new routing computations, and you are aware of more than 1 LSA immediately outstanding, you can delay the computation based on the processing of the entire packet. The act of "grouping" adds a delay and this delay may increase the latency before routing changes NEED to be done. With respect to grouping, the work is forced to be done at the receiving router in bursts of each packet of LSAs, versus the ability to process them over the grouping period. Would you rather have your router be forced to process say 500 LSAs within say 2 secs, or recieve 100 LSAs per sec for 5 secs within 5 groups? So, it is not a panacea in the extreme, IMO. IMO, the former use of LSA groups CAN add to the possibility of LSA bursts with short time periods and thus create an artifiical LSA storm. Thus, there are tradeoffs. Mitchell Erblich ================== On May 3, 2009, at 9:16 AM, Mukul Goyal wrote: > Hi > > I apologize for this out-of-scope query. > > I am confused regarding the use of group pacing timers implemented > in Cisco routers. This timer specifies "the interval at which LSAs > are collected into a group and refreshed, checksummed, or aged". One > of the objectives is "to improve the LSA packing density for the > refreshes in large topologies", which I understand to be reducing > the number of LSAs that are refreshed together, i.e. reducing the > chances of LSA refresh storms. > > The way I understand group pacing timer to be is that the firing of > this timer allows LSA ages to be increased and if some of the self- > originated LSAs have reached the max age (or will reach the max age > before the next firing of the timer), they are refreshed. > > Since most routers do not originate too many LSAs, the group pacing > delay value seems to be important only for area/AS border routers > that do originate multiple LSAs. > > I will appreciate it if a knowledgable person could confirm/correct > the above (off-list if considered more appropriate). > > Regards > Mukul Goyal > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > OSPF@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From mrthom@essex.ac.uk Mon May 4 00:07:24 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CD6328C107 for ; Mon, 4 May 2009 00:07:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.444 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.444 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.155, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 I4XUolN4W5cg for ; Mon, 4 May 2009 00:07:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from serlx14.essex.ac.uk (serlx14.essex.ac.uk [155.245.48.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B18F53A6C73 for ; Mon, 4 May 2009 00:06:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sernt12.essex.ac.uk ([155.245.42.32]) by serlx14.essex.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1M0sEl-0005yx-Ny; Mon, 04 May 2009 08:05:15 +0100 Received: from sernt14.essex.ac.uk ([155.245.42.34]) by sernt12.essex.ac.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 4 May 2009 08:05:15 +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: Mon, 4 May 2009 08:02:06 +0100 Message-ID: <7AC902A40BEDD411A3A800D0B7847B661DA753E7@sernt14.essex.ac.uk> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [OSPF] Group pacing delay Thread-Index: AcnMCtEjOPO/kX0pTfik1x7aGr+ZbgAe2rsz References: <2098891752.367371241367398721.JavaMail.root@mail02.pantherlink.uwm.edu> From: "Thomas, Matthew R" To: "Mukul Goyal" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 May 2009 07:05:15.0187 (UTC) FILETIME=[ACB31030:01C9CC86] X-Essex-ClamAV: No malware found X-MailScanner-ID: 1M0sEl-0005yx-Ny X-Essex-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-Essex-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=0, required 5, autolearn=disabled) X-Essex-MailScanner-From: mrthom@essex.ac.uk X-Essex-MailScanner-Watermark: 1242025516.36024@GMGOlLnueXZSJV/JUwmxBg Cc: ospf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OSPF] Group pacing delay X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 07:07:24 -0000 Hi Mukal, =20 I agree with you. The router must be the originator of the LSA or it = would be unable to change the age. So I guess that ABR's are the focus = here. When you get your offlist pls feel free to copy me as I am = interested in the authoritative answer too. =20 MT ________________________________ From: ospf-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of Mukul Goyal Sent: Sun 03/05/2009 17:16 To: ospf@ietf.org Subject: [OSPF] Group pacing delay Hi I apologize for this out-of-scope query. I am confused regarding the use of group pacing timers implemented in = Cisco routers. This timer specifies "the interval at which LSAs are = collected into a group and refreshed, checksummed, or aged". One of the = objectives is "to improve the LSA packing density for the refreshes in = large topologies", which I understand to be reducing the number of LSAs = that are refreshed together, i.e. reducing the chances of LSA refresh = storms. The way I understand group pacing timer to be is that the firing of this = timer allows LSA ages to be increased and if some of the self-originated = LSAs have reached the max age (or will reach the max age before the next = firing of the timer), they are refreshed. Since most routers do not originate too many LSAs, the group pacing = delay value seems to be important only for area/AS border routers that = do originate multiple LSAs. I will appreciate it if a knowledgable person could confirm/correct the = above (off-list if considered more appropriate). Regards Mukul Goyal _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From prvs=369bc55b7=acee@redback.com Tue May 5 06:18:51 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 385E13A6D32 for ; Tue, 5 May 2009 06:18:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.401 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.198, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 GgaQxdLpTs-R for ; Tue, 5 May 2009 06:18:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mgate.redback.com (mgate.redback.com [155.53.3.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 346C528C152 for ; Tue, 5 May 2009 06:18:50 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.40,297,1239001200"; d="txt'?scan'208";a="1443825" Received: from prattle.redback.com ([155.53.12.9]) by mgate.redback.com with ESMTP; 05 May 2009 06:20:16 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA3024F58FF; Tue, 5 May 2009 06:20:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (prattle [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 30341-05; Tue, 5 May 2009 06:20:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6???1] (unknown [155.53.154.39]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB4A14F58FE; Tue, 5 May 2009 06:20:15 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) To: Ross Callon , Adrian Farrel Message-Id: <716C6D12-D969-4B52-8426-554D5B16D84C@redback.com> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=Apple-Mail-20--918073883 From: Acee Lindem Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 09:20:14 -0400 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1) Cc: OSPF List Subject: [OSPF] Advertising a Router's Local Addresses in OSPF TE Extensions - draft-ietf-ospf-te-node-addr-06.txt X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 13:32:59 -0000 --Apple-Mail-20--918073883 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Hello Ross, Adrian, The OSPF WG would like to request publication of the subject standards track document. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-te-node-addr-06.txt I've attached the protocol write-up for the draft. Thanks, Acee --Apple-Mail-20--918073883 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; x-unix-mode=0644; name=ospf-te-node-address-proto-writeup.txt Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=ospf-te-node-address-proto-writeup.txt 1. Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready to forward to the IESG for publication? Yes 2. Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members and key non-WG members? Yes - I've reviewed it myself several times. Do you have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No 3. Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)? No 4. Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns in the write-up. No 5. How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The draft has been around for several years and evolved to allow its applicability to ASON routing. I see no barriers to standardization. 6. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email to the Responsible Area Director. No 7. Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the ID Checklist items? idnits 2.11.11 tmp/draft-ietf-ospf-te-node-addr-06.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) No issues found here. Summary: 0 errors (**), 1 warning (==), 0 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. Is the document split into normative and informative references? Yes Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? (note here that the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with normative references to IDs, it will delay publication until all such IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.) No 9. What is the intended status of the document? (e.g., Proposed Standard, Informational?) Proposed Standard 10. For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval announcement includes a write-up section with the following sections: * Technical Summary This draft extends OSPF TE to advertise addresses and prefixes without the overhead of the TE link sub-TLV or relegation to host addresses. * Working Group Summary There is no opposition to the draft and at least on CCAMP draft has it as a normative reference. * Protocol Quality The TLV and sub-TLV definitions and conventions for advertisement of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses are consistent with OSPF and OSPFv3. This encoding is both straight forward and concise. --Apple-Mail-20--918073883-- From prvs=37077efcb=acee@redback.com Wed May 6 16:26:27 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD0663A6F8B for ; Wed, 6 May 2009 16:26:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.987 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.987 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.258, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_MLH_Stock1=0.87] 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 wfRAbNYsUFJ2 for ; Wed, 6 May 2009 16:26:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mgate.redback.com (mgate.redback.com [155.53.3.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 361753A6F9E for ; Wed, 6 May 2009 16:26:20 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.40,305,1239001200"; d="scan'208";a="1485757" Received: from prattle.redback.com ([155.53.12.9]) by mgate.redback.com with ESMTP; 06 May 2009 16:27:48 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 070D723538A for ; Wed, 6 May 2009 16:27:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (prattle [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 08765-03 for ; Wed, 6 May 2009 16:27:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6???1] (unknown [155.53.154.39]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3149235389 for ; Wed, 6 May 2009 16:27:47 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed To: OSPF List From: Acee Lindem Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 19:27:46 -0400 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1) Subject: [OSPF] IETF 75 in Stockholm X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 23:26:27 -0000 Please send Abhay or I an E-mail if you have a draft you intend to submit and, if so, would like to present it at the WG meeting in Stockholm. We're trying to get an early feel for the agenda as we may request a 1 hour slot if everything will fit. Thanks, Acee & Abhay From prvs=3713dedd2=acee@redback.com Thu May 7 10:41:43 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDB0D3A6D91 for ; Thu, 7 May 2009 10:41:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.421 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.421 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.178, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 BAWWUrTg4R83 for ; Thu, 7 May 2009 10:41:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mgate.redback.com (mgate.redback.com [155.53.3.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD3B03A6F1D for ; Thu, 7 May 2009 10:41:15 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.40,312,1239001200"; d="scan'208";a="1503664" Received: from prattle.redback.com ([155.53.12.9]) by mgate.redback.com with ESMTP; 07 May 2009 10:42:44 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41BC852393A for ; Thu, 7 May 2009 10:42:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (prattle [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 08070-06 for ; Thu, 7 May 2009 10:42:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6???1] (unknown [155.53.154.39]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EECB7523938 for ; Thu, 7 May 2009 10:42:43 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed To: OSPF List From: Acee Lindem Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 13:42:42 -0400 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1) Subject: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for OSPFv2 HMAC-SHA Cryptographic Authentication - X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 17:41:43 -0000 The WG last call for the subject document will begin today and end Friday, May 22nd at 12:00 AM PDT. Please review the document and send your comments to this list. This version includes the Apad in the HMAC calculation consistent with the discussions we had in Philadelphia and SF. Thanks, Acee and Abhay From jsmith4112003@yahoo.co.uk Sun May 17 16:53:47 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8578B3A69AF for ; Sun, 17 May 2009 16:53:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.134 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.134 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.465, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 6m3QNhLA11ab for ; Sun, 17 May 2009 16:53:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web27201.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (web27201.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.146.182.91]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 68E7E3A67EA for ; Sun, 17 May 2009 16:53:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 78363 invoked by uid 60001); 17 May 2009 23:55:19 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.co.uk; s=s1024; t=1242604519; bh=W/2OwXQCJUaoTE2WN/Kjy4KVFtMSvbBu8lRj5ktIXOI=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=mCJzDY0mfvzxCFwJbFvWv2tLCa1C0Do1G1dGSO9qFFKXxfcH2VDkGGvTyTsVaVXYt3LWZQbLyKffVa1ddIrkOLZ60fgupl2LWLpozlaciJ6yv6iiHxP5HPgkJ5tzwqkbFEa8foeFXJujEBDDW2XrX1WQlIfGqc+qaBiXS7XNclk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.co.uk; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=J/+Cc06ePXUG6dwGa/8CD7ED2J6jQjIj4AprPoJGT9sKLfYrLXBv75DwMEFlVGiAjuam8rErtSQ0MR6Z1L6/cF8I/dFGOs2QG7TjI940nS42H2r2Oy4D2QQnUhSuTFiE4i2UaEe1dhN7ufFcXjucEkJ8uV0Q1+vkKLzl/CbBIgI=; Message-ID: <930184.74533.qm@web27201.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: ZqC4EZQVM1lm1bSScqNEiVJWZuWTE3Gy2ajAWPjaj8c39tdcslOb_eQzwRTRH1r38WCyH8VoKAnJXfbkybVgSb4gK0L.02ppmlm7OY3ph4fj3xL0nAqKI63ubvn73FhwW7M.DOhvM_zEnquEJdPLZzrx5eZgAXZQjQwQFh8ZoujeajbUsHS0oMNZ8A4Zs5BuApUhejjee937NL05F9WDJx4nGg9f59TdPRJGNBVMlEJAXC9ScSvzu0gsfR6evgRsZATIjkEROL2sjcXU5cA47JOPazxfrqNhZXomtOef2Sd0U5G1uUakjRcEJEAGeyKJlAv_Zo5d Received: from [122.167.244.219] by web27201.mail.ukl.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 17 May 2009 23:55:19 GMT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/1277.43 YahooMailWebService/0.7.289.10 References: Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 23:55:19 +0000 (GMT) From: John Smith To: Acee Lindem , OSPF List In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for OSPFv2 HMAC-SHA Cryptographic Authentication - X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 23:53:47 -0000 Hi,=0A=0AGood to see this work finally moving forward. I strongly support t= his once the following two issues are taken care of:=0A=0A(a) Draft cites H= MAC-SHA-256, and not HMAC-SHA-1, as a MUST. Any specific reasons? =0A=0A(b)= Although the document adds support for HMAC-SHA-224, i dont see a value of= B (section 3.3) defined for this.=0A=0AJohn=0A=0A=0A=0A----- Original Mess= age ----=0AFrom: Acee Lindem =0ATo: OSPF List =0ASent: Thursday, 7 May, 2009 23:12:42=0ASubject: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last = Call for OSPFv2 HMAC-SHA Cryptographic Authentication - =0A=0AThe WG last call for the subject document will begin to= day and end Friday, May 22nd at 12:00 AM PDT. Please review the document an= d send your comments to this list. This version includes the Apad in the HM= AC calculation consistent with the discussions we had in Philadelphia and S= F.=0A=0AThanks,=0AAcee and Abhay___________________________________________= ____=0AOSPF mailing list=0AOSPF@ietf.org=0Ahttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/lis= tinfo/ospf=0A=0A=0A=0A From prvs=3825daabb=acee@redback.com Mon May 18 06:05:26 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A91583A6C42 for ; Mon, 18 May 2009 06:05:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.43 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.43 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.169, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 thSbB7BYqJWQ for ; Mon, 18 May 2009 06:05:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mgate.redback.com (mgate.redback.com [155.53.3.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E73863A689C for ; Mon, 18 May 2009 06:05:25 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.41,209,1241420400"; d="scan'208";a="1758049" Received: from prattle.redback.com ([155.53.12.9]) by mgate.redback.com with ESMTP; 18 May 2009 06:06:57 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 155A234D416; Mon, 18 May 2009 06:06:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (prattle [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 04870-06; Mon, 18 May 2009 06:06:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6???1] (svilogin-1.sj.us.am.ericsson.se [155.53.154.39]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CF1F34D415; Mon, 18 May 2009 06:06:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <930184.74533.qm@web27201.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <930184.74533.qm@web27201.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Acee Lindem Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 09:06:52 -0400 To: John Smith X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1) Cc: OSPF List Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for OSPFv2 HMAC-SHA Cryptographic Authentication - X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 13:06:18 -0000 Hi John, Thanks for reviewing. On May 17, 2009, at 7:55 PM, John Smith wrote: > > Hi, > > Good to see this work finally moving forward. I strongly support > this once the following two issues are taken care of: > > (a) Draft cites HMAC-SHA-256, and not HMAC-SHA-1, as a MUST. Any > specific reasons? HMAC-SHA-1 is "So 1997"... The authors reached agreement on a stronger common algorithm. Ran or one of the other authors may want to comment on HMAC-SHA-1 vulnerabilities as there was a lengthy discussion on which algorithm(s) to make a "MUST". > > (b) Although the document adds support for HMAC-SHA-224, i dont see > a value of B (section 3.3) defined for this. This should be updated as follows: For SHA-1, SNA-224, and SHA-256: B == 64 For SHA-384 and SHA-512: B == 128 Thanks, Acee > > John > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Acee Lindem > To: OSPF List > Sent: Thursday, 7 May, 2009 23:12:42 > Subject: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for OSPFv2 HMAC-SHA Cryptographic > Authentication - > > The WG last call for the subject document will begin today and end > Friday, May 22nd at 12:00 AM PDT. Please review the document and > send your comments to this list. This version includes the Apad in > the HMAC calculation consistent with the discussions we had in > Philadelphia and SF. > > Thanks, > Acee and Abhay_______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > OSPF@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > > > > From manav@alcatel-lucent.com Mon May 18 09:38:30 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 824ED3A6DAD for ; Mon, 18 May 2009 09:38:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.072 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.072 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.177, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=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 WM2qGQEvFCbi for ; Mon, 18 May 2009 09:38:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smail3.alcatel.fr (smail3.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 589E83A6C90 for ; Mon, 18 May 2009 09:38:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.63]) by smail3.alcatel.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/ICT) with ESMTP id n4IGdvdL026851 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 18 May 2009 18:39:57 +0200 Received: from INBANSXCHHUB02.in.alcatel-lucent.com (135.250.12.35) by FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (135.120.45.63) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.340.0; Mon, 18 May 2009 18:39:57 +0200 Received: from INBANSXCHMBSA1.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.38]) by INBANSXCHHUB02.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.35]) with mapi; Mon, 18 May 2009 22:09:54 +0530 From: "Bhatia, Manav (Manav)" To: Acee Lindem , "ospf@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 22:09:54 +0530 Thread-Topic: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for OSPFv2 HMAC-SHA Cryptographic Authentication - Thread-Index: AcnXudAuVQGG+sNmRI+51pQbokNgwgAGdELw Message-ID: <7C362EEF9C7896468B36C9B79200D83503607157B3@INBANSXCHMBSA1.in.alcatel-lucent.com> References: <930184.74533.qm@web27201.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 155.132.188.83 Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for OSPFv2 HMAC-SHA Cryptographic Authentication - X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 16:38:30 -0000 Hi John, Thanks for the review!=20 > > Good to see this work finally moving forward. I strongly support =20 > > this once the following two issues are taken care of: > > > > (a) Draft cites HMAC-SHA-256, and not HMAC-SHA-1, as a MUST. Any =20 > > specific reasons? >=20 > HMAC-SHA-1 is "So 1997"... The authors reached agreement on a =20 > stronger common algorithm. Ran or one of the other authors may want =20 > to comment on HMAC-SHA-1 vulnerabilities as there was a lengthy =20 > discussion on which algorithm(s) to make a "MUST". >=20 The search space for SHA1 collisions is getting quite smaller. One can read= more about it on http://eurocrypt2009rump.cr.yp.to/837a0a8086fa6ca71424940= 9ddfae43d.pdf Though this does not directly affect HMAC-SHA1, there have been other paper= s about attacks on SHA1 when used with the HMAC construct (http://eprint.ia= cr.org/2006/319.pdf). Please note that these attacks don't necessarily resu= lt in direct vulnerabilities in HMAC-SHA1 as used in the routing protocols = for authentication purposes (RFC 4822, RFC 5310), because the colliding mes= sage may not necessarily be a syntactically correct protocol packet. Howeve= r, we reasoned that if the WG wanted to mandate one particular authenticati= on algorithm then it must be something stronger and more secure than HMAC-S= HA1, and so HMAC-SHA-256 was chosen.=20 Cheers, Manav -- Manav Bhatia, IP Division, Alcatel-Lucent, Bangalore - India = From thisisvinodsid@gmail.com Tue May 19 00:08:04 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D055D28C136 for ; Tue, 19 May 2009 00:08:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.391 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.391 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.207, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] 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 95TI5n+L7zsC for ; Tue, 19 May 2009 00:08:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from yw-out-2324.google.com (yw-out-2324.google.com [74.125.46.28]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A0DB28C132 for ; Tue, 19 May 2009 00:08:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yw-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 3so4188403ywj.49 for ; Tue, 19 May 2009 00:09:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=gXqREzlmdFrzX8HbpTtWW6Th4r9iGXor74FKpTWNFXg=; b=tsnw1st5mfgpSbC67GSmZ+utFtAQ8BIVmg05dF2U2ij6SuTUIbw2vwPy+m2bb6PRic yEUL/EbdEHwyh8JmZFiwXTWVaKL1NuK7MjJfmmuF6TcX3Cn3sl6VCE/1iR3E7wwz8X6Y e2r6jSnaqLfA2IvyRm4jwjGTY+32vnqNd2iB4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=g5KK5XH3tmmWA5sMShPrNIw5MUmPuU0Z7cTl3kXd4iSXiB3bJcU1TjKSTEbS0+C82C PVLhkB1fD4jz/4nVR0+TcO7Ew4hKsYc7hFl6UeC8Ihsj3GnZ7570wvGxzEIwSFVr6G0W OikjZMZ1Wx2ehNbA1kB0YhQiEV3KmdgIu3G/o= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.101.71.3 with SMTP id y3mr10692717ank.62.1242716980181; Tue, 19 May 2009 00:09:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 12:39:40 +0530 Message-ID: <8cf85e570905190009k511f83c7we3f8e2dc0b8d327e@mail.gmail.com> From: vinod c To: ospf@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016368e1b11290470046a3e98df Subject: [OSPF] Clarification regarding forwarding address X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 07:10:04 -0000 --0016368e1b11290470046a3e98df Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Can anyone interpret the following statement in RFC 2328: ** *Forwarding Address*, if the network between the NSSA ASBR and the adjacent autonomous system is advertised as an internal route, is the next hop address on the network. If the network is not advertised as an internal route, the forwarding address will be the NSSA ASBR's Router ID. Regards, Vinod ** * * --0016368e1b11290470046a3e98df Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,
Can anyone interpret the following statement in RFC 2328:

Forwarding=20 Address, if the=20 network between the NSSA ASBR and the adjacent autonomous system=20 is

advertised as an inte= rnal=20 route, is the next hop address on the network. If the network is not advert= ised=20 as

an internal route, th= e=20 forwarding address will be the NSSA ASBR's Router=20 ID.


Regards,
Vinod
=

=A0

--0016368e1b11290470046a3e98df-- From prvs=38387b2b3=acee@redback.com Tue May 19 05:07:40 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 842E83A6C45 for ; Tue, 19 May 2009 05:07:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.43 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.43 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.168, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] 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 lptTIDXX6art for ; Tue, 19 May 2009 05:07:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mgate.redback.com (mgate.redback.com [155.53.3.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFCC73A6848 for ; Tue, 19 May 2009 05:07:39 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.41,215,1241420400"; d="scan'208,217";a="1782285" Received: from prattle.redback.com ([155.53.12.9]) by mgate.redback.com with ESMTP; 19 May 2009 05:09:16 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95E7D89200C; Tue, 19 May 2009 05:09:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (prattle [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 16890-09; Tue, 19 May 2009 05:09:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6???1] (svilogin-1.sj.us.am.ericsson.se [155.53.154.39]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1CDF89200B; Tue, 19 May 2009 05:09:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <8cf85e570905190009k511f83c7we3f8e2dc0b8d327e@mail.gmail.com> References: <8cf85e570905190009k511f83c7we3f8e2dc0b8d327e@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-18-287266518 Message-Id: From: Acee Lindem Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 08:09:15 -0400 To: vinod c X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1) Cc: ospf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OSPF] Clarification regarding forwarding address X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 12:17:24 -0000 --Apple-Mail-18-287266518 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Hi Vinod, I'm not where you found the statement below but it surely wasn't RFC 2328 or even RFC 3101. I suggest you read the latter, all secrets will be revealed. Acee On May 19, 2009, at 3:09 AM, vinod c wrote: > Hi, > Can anyone interpret the following statement in RFC 2328: > > > Forwarding Address, if the network between the NSSA ASBR and the > adjacent autonomous system is > > advertised as an internal route, is the next hop address on the > network. If the network is not advertised as > > an internal route, the forwarding address will be the NSSA ASBR's > Router ID. > > > Regards, > Vinod > > > > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > OSPF@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf --Apple-Mail-18-287266518 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Vinod,=A0

I'm not where you found the statement = below but it surely wasn't RFC 2328 or even RFC 3101. I suggest you read = the latter, all secrets will be = revealed.=A0

Acee=A0
On May 19, = 2009, at 3:09 AM, vinod c wrote:

Hi,
Can = anyone interpret the following statement in RFC 2328:

=

Forwarding = Address, if the network between the NSSA ASBR and the = adjacent autonomous system is

advertised as an internal route, is the next = hop address on the network. If the network is not advertised = as

an internal route, the forwarding address will be the NSSA ASBR's = Router ID.


Regards,
Vinod

=A0

OSPF mailing list
=

= --Apple-Mail-18-287266518-- From prvs=38565978f=acee@redback.com Thu May 21 16:02:39 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50EFB3A695C for ; Thu, 21 May 2009 16:02:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.354 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.354 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.917, BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292, SARE_MLH_Stock1=0.87] 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 CXgq-eXHgW9N for ; Thu, 21 May 2009 16:02:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mgate.redback.com (mgate.redback.com [155.53.3.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A51843A6828 for ; Thu, 21 May 2009 16:02:38 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.41,230,1241420400"; d="scan'208";a="1854281" Received: from prattle.redback.com ([155.53.12.9]) by mgate.redback.com with ESMTP; 21 May 2009 16:04:17 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1F73C390A9 for ; Thu, 21 May 2009 16:04:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (prattle [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 28274-02 for ; Thu, 21 May 2009 16:04:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6???1] (svilogin-1.sj.us.am.ericsson.se [155.53.154.39]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB3B8C390A8 for ; Thu, 21 May 2009 16:04:16 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <704A04F7-D388-48C7-85E9-CF413DBAF115@redback.com> Cc: OSPF List Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Acee Lindem Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 19:04:15 -0400 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1) Subject: Re: [OSPF] IETF 75 in Stockholm X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 23:16:37 -0000 Just a reminder - we've not received any requests for agenda time. Thanks, Acee On May 6, 2009, at 7:27 PM, Acee Lindem wrote: > Please send Abhay or I an E-mail if you have a draft you intend to > submit and, if so, would like to present it at the WG meeting in > Stockholm. We're trying to get an early feel for the agenda as we > may request a 1 hour slot if everything will fit. > Thanks, > Acee & Abhay_______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > OSPF@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From prvs=386aea497=acee@redback.com Fri May 22 08:35:00 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 165693A6CA9 for ; Fri, 22 May 2009 08:35:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.773 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.773 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.466, BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292] 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 a51OhKVEHglJ for ; Fri, 22 May 2009 08:34:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mgate.redback.com (mgate.redback.com [155.53.3.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 712913A6AFB for ; Fri, 22 May 2009 08:34:59 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.41,234,1241420400"; d="scan'208";a="1868206" Received: from prattle.redback.com ([155.53.12.9]) by mgate.redback.com with ESMTP; 22 May 2009 08:36:38 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A3A6DE010F for ; Fri, 22 May 2009 08:36:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (prattle [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 18922-08 for ; Fri, 22 May 2009 08:36:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6???1] (svilogin-1.sj.us.am.ericsson.se [155.53.154.39]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4398CDE010E for ; Fri, 22 May 2009 08:36:38 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Cc: OSPF List Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Acee Lindem Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 11:36:37 -0400 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1) Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for OSPFv2 HMAC-SHA Cryptographic Authentication - X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 15:38:11 -0000 The WG last call has ended. We'll incorporate the John Smith's comment on the missing HMAC-SHA-224 block length and send the draft to the ADs for evaluation. Thanks, Acee On May 7, 2009, at 1:42 PM, Acee Lindem wrote: > The WG last call for the subject document will begin today and end > Friday, May 22nd at 12:00 AM PDT. Please review the document and > send your comments to this list. This version includes the Apad in > the HMAC calculation consistent with the discussions we had in > Philadelphia and SF. > > Thanks, > Acee and Abhay_______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > OSPF@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From wwwrun@core3.amsl.com Thu May 28 14:51:32 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietf.org Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 30) id 7260A3A6D52; Thu, 28 May 2009 14:51:32 -0700 (PDT) X-idtracker: yes To: IETF-Announce From: The IESG Message-Id: <20090528215132.7260A3A6D52@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 14:51:32 -0700 (PDT) Cc: ospf@ietf.org Subject: [OSPF] Last Call: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-mib (Management Information Base for OSPFv3) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 21:51:32 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the Open Shortest Path First IGP WG (ospf) to consider the following document: - 'Management Information Base for OSPFv3 ' as a Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2009-06-11. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. The file can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-mib-14.txt IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=4497&rfc_flag=0 From prvs=3932d640d=acee@redback.com Fri May 29 13:21:51 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A46ED3A6B40 for ; Fri, 29 May 2009 13:21:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.41 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.41 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.189, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 5cT6ToL6WtWM for ; Fri, 29 May 2009 13:21:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mgate.redback.com (mgate.redback.com [155.53.3.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AD1E3A69CB for ; Fri, 29 May 2009 13:21:50 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.41,273,1241420400"; d="txt'?scan'208";a="2031292" Received: from prattle.redback.com ([155.53.12.9]) by mgate.redback.com with ESMTP; 29 May 2009 13:23:32 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 524AD58D698; Fri, 29 May 2009 13:23:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (prattle [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 16758-05; Fri, 29 May 2009 13:23:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6???1] (svilogin-1.sj.us.am.ericsson.se [155.53.154.39]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9585F58D697; Fri, 29 May 2009 13:23:30 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) To: Ross Callon , Adrian Farrel Message-Id: <3E991D9A-4AE2-4608-84B3-EC94DFBBA324@redback.com> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=Apple-Mail-62--966562375 From: Acee Lindem Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 16:23:29 -0400 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1) Cc: Tony Li , Randall Atkinson , "Matthew J. Fanto" , OSPF List Subject: [OSPF] Request AD Evaluation for Publication for OSPFv2 HMAC-SHA Cryptographic Authentication () X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 20:22:13 -0000 --Apple-Mail-62--966562375 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Ross, Adrian, The WG last comments have been addressed and this document is ready for publication. The proto-writeup is attached. Thanks, Acee --Apple-Mail-62--966562375 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; x-unix-mode=0644; name=ospf-v2-hmac-sha-auth-proto-writeup.txt Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=ospf-v2-hmac-sha-auth-proto-writeup.txt OSPFv2 HMAC-SHA Cryptographic Authentication 1. Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready to forward to the IESG for publication? Yes 2. Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members and key non-WG members? Yes - Both WG members and members of the security community have read it (although that doesn't mean that the SECDIR won't have comments). Do you have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No 3. Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)? No 4. Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns in the write-up. No 5. How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There was controversy as to how the HMAC-SHA digest would be computed and the subject draft is the agreed upon solution. 6. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email to the Responsible Area Director. No 7. Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the ID Checklist items? idnits 2.11.11 tmp/draft-ietf-ospf-hmac-sha-05.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking references for intended status: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. No nits found. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. Is the document split into normative and informative references? Yes Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? (note here that the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with normative references to IDs, it will delay publication until all such IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.) No 9. What is the intended status of the document? (e.g., Proposed Standard, Informational?) Proposed Standard 10. For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval announcement includes a write-up section with the following sections: * Technical Summary This draft extends OSPFv2 cryptographic authentication to include the HMAC-SHA-x family of algorithms. * Working Group Summary There is no opposition to the draft and at some members of the security community are awaiting its publication. * Protocol Quality The existing cryptographic authentication is simply extended to include the new algorithms. ISIS and RIPv2 already support HMAC-SHA-X so there a precedent for applying these algorithms to IGP authentication. There is one prototype implementation. --Apple-Mail-62--966562375-- From prvs=3932d640d=acee@redback.com Fri May 29 13:23:43 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09BFE3A6E6C for ; Fri, 29 May 2009 13:23:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.409 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.409 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.190, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 6a8Vl3Tv+iFA for ; Fri, 29 May 2009 13:23:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mgate.redback.com (mgate.redback.com [155.53.3.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 638183A6DAB for ; Fri, 29 May 2009 13:23:42 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.41,273,1241420400"; d="scan'208";a="2031321" Received: from prattle.redback.com ([155.53.12.9]) by mgate.redback.com with ESMTP; 29 May 2009 13:25:26 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4E69B12AC0 for ; Fri, 29 May 2009 13:25:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (prattle [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 18139-03 for ; Fri, 29 May 2009 13:25:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6???1] (svilogin-1.sj.us.am.ericsson.se [155.53.154.39]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F9CDB12AC1 for ; Fri, 29 May 2009 13:25:26 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) In-Reply-To: <3E991D9A-4AE2-4608-84B3-EC94DFBBA324@redback.com> References: <3E991D9A-4AE2-4608-84B3-EC94DFBBA324@redback.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <7A61475A-4859-41D6-9CC3-1998860434EB@redback.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Acee Lindem Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 16:25:25 -0400 To: OSPF List X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1) Subject: Re: [OSPF] Request AD Evaluation for Publication for OSPFv2 HMAC-SHA Cryptographic Authentication () X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 20:23:43 -0000 OSPF Implementors, Any implementation experience would be appreciated. Thanks, Acee On May 29, 2009, at 4:23 PM, Acee Lindem wrote: > Ross, Adrian, > > The WG last comments have been addressed and this document is ready > for publication. The proto-writeup is attached. > > Thanks, > Acee writeup.txt>_______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > OSPF@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf