From nobody Mon Mar 5 07:05:34 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1931E12D82F; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 07:05:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=juniper.net Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ia5QVZ-xPOj2; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 07:05:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com [208.84.65.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E15212D777; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 07:05:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0108156.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w25EiCwX001245; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 06:44:27 -0800 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=K8+z4hciKCgi+CLVafmALSsP4iqvh9ha9vw+FDIpvtk=; b=R2U+/T3vf+gcGZA6yXfW3NF2mXzJoy0kkX//OUziONVqDjahiWyb2e1TvQttzq+KbxKI NRq6RQ4x/sbq1HBHpSqMbkfB9W/tRAblQTS3aMuI8WnQPq8fznfVJoePIC9sDCfw8Tbk WHFW39W8nXtUtiwbSArKmwmTvyJITQC9ssvVwwvupg+H3/GvFAhmC8qHY2pQXpu4GxEE fIlvedGs7fHDUClV9HFShdrMG7C95umQ56wn8tcnAvPf9kzX93qnCp1kuX633ZqLDC/H Nihn9jN62+QtUlJwG+iClkmvjd8CqnZFRGsotx+pUEBxQvvHZx1pbq3/We99YPIF1sgu fA== Received: from nam02-cy1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-cys01nam02lp0047.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.47]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2gh2edrhp5-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 05 Mar 2018 06:44:27 -0800 Received: from BLUPR0501MB2051.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.164.23.21) by BLUPR0501MB2083.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.164.23.29) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.567.6; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 14:44:24 +0000 Received: from BLUPR0501MB2051.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::2d0f:9ef6:9bce:7853]) by BLUPR0501MB2051.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::2d0f:9ef6:9bce:7853%2]) with mapi id 15.20.0567.011; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 14:44:24 +0000 From: Ron Bonica To: "" CC: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-homenet-babel-profile.all@ietf.org" , "babel@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: rtg-dir review: draft-ietf-homenet-babel-profile-06 Thread-Index: AdO0j7vOgIquLz/7SCGjzhjOukpL1w== Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 14:44:24 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.12] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BLUPR0501MB2083; 7:W4oUo5PBKTlwouDoa0Dtg0GHRrkpOZsUIyFTs9OMY/+U8lpmmaXX0mo+KBVDb3pkmuBkxNoV0sfjDgzx1ZLFgufd1Xtsifo3DXg9NQh2GIbkGo+XKpPCxtjIgRl9IpfzhTn9okzChV4OjnkGVZksCVyffjhGGFU7WO7ufVs/dJ4RIVnnD0ZZe/VHPK+m5goD8/E20auWRMWpZ5zBThP6olgYgSN4W6VqPbI6jouW1sGB325SE+ATt1XgNCo1XkBY x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SSOS; x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 444bfdf0-3d30-45b0-fdcb-08d582a796fd x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(7020095)(4652020)(48565401081)(5600026)(4604075)(3008032)(4534165)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(2017052603307)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:BLUPR0501MB2083; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BLUPR0501MB2083: x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:; x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(8211001083)(6040501)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3231220)(944501244)(52105095)(3002001)(10201501046)(93006095)(93001095)(6055026)(6041288)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123560045)(20161123564045)(20161123562045)(20161123558120)(6072148)(201708071742011); SRVR:BLUPR0501MB2083; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BLUPR0501MB2083; x-forefront-prvs: 06022AA85F x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(376002)(366004)(346002)(39380400002)(396003)(39860400002)(199004)(189003)(66066001)(1720100001)(450100002)(6436002)(59450400001)(6506007)(97736004)(316002)(55016002)(6346003)(102836004)(186003)(33656002)(68736007)(14454004)(26005)(105586002)(5250100002)(2900100001)(54906003)(9686003)(8936002)(53936002)(3660700001)(106356001)(5660300001)(86362001)(74316002)(3280700002)(99286004)(8676002)(478600001)(2906002)(81166006)(81156014)(4326008)(6116002)(3846002)(7696005)(305945005)(25786009)(7736002)(491001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR0501MB2083; H:BLUPR0501MB2051.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts) x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: CxaICmecZcEaSf67vnAISle0EG0qV/f8AbQuErc8FBWSLqHVW3QWCCn/fJ0tYkGXUeUvQTdijk/uUHbPnUXSCww0qiNPfJb8YMHPxkdyisg7NRUGAYHxLJwpZpRcxPgu1Eshpmd8vpy8wfXTPCBklvfQRmzNqBEBtgoYE20JGE/4ffsyO39C/A3RopglVYgU41oRrOBJLNxokqdZ0WekFRitAmI4bIsO70eqpt/TQWRtykMX7fPkY0IQy/rhL0Ab0RpCyQiDsPc64JMPLy/Bf3U4fGN5dHG4/IhxXmNSawCu6jPJAJHOMoMVp7RbLd/eAA6176AmVwYuodwEmMo9Uw== spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 444bfdf0-3d30-45b0-fdcb-08d582a796fd X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 05 Mar 2018 14:44:24.6545 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BLUPR0501MB2083 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2018-03-05_06:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1803050176 Archived-At: Subject: [babel] rtg-dir review: draft-ietf-homenet-babel-profile-06 X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2018 15:05:31 -0000 SGVsbG8sDQoNCkkgaGF2ZSBiZWVuIHNlbGVjdGVkIGFzIHRoZSBSb3V0aW5nIERpcmVjdG9yYXRl IHJldmlld2VyIGZvciB0aGlzIGRyYWZ0LiBUaGUgUm91dGluZyBEaXJlY3RvcmF0ZSBzZWVrcyB0 byByZXZpZXcgYWxsIHJvdXRpbmcgb3Igcm91dGluZy1yZWxhdGVkIGRyYWZ0cyBhcyB0aGV5IHBh c3MgdGhyb3VnaCBJRVRGIGxhc3QgY2FsbCBhbmQgSUVTRyByZXZpZXcsIGFuZCBzb21ldGltZXMg b24gc3BlY2lhbCByZXF1ZXN0LiBUaGUgcHVycG9zZSBvZiB0aGUgcmV2aWV3IGlzIHRvIHByb3Zp ZGUgYXNzaXN0YW5jZSB0byB0aGUgUm91dGluZyBBRHMuIEZvciBtb3JlIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIGFi b3V0IHRoZSBSb3V0aW5nIERpcmVjdG9yYXRlLCBwbGVhc2Ugc2VlIOKAi2h0dHA6Ly90cmFjLnRv b2xzLmlldGYub3JnL2FyZWEvcnRnL3RyYWMvd2lraS9SdGdEaXINCg0KQWx0aG91Z2ggdGhlc2Ug Y29tbWVudHMgYXJlIHByaW1hcmlseSBmb3IgdGhlIHVzZSBvZiB0aGUgUm91dGluZyBBRHMsIGl0 IHdvdWxkIGJlIGhlbHBmdWwgaWYgeW91IGNvdWxkIGNvbnNpZGVyIHRoZW0gYWxvbmcgd2l0aCBh bnkgb3RoZXIgSUVURiBMYXN0IENhbGwgY29tbWVudHMgdGhhdCB5b3UgcmVjZWl2ZSwgYW5kIHN0 cml2ZSB0byByZXNvbHZlIHRoZW0gdGhyb3VnaCBkaXNjdXNzaW9uIG9yIGJ5IHVwZGF0aW5nIHRo ZSBkcmFmdC4NCg0KRG9jdW1lbnQ6IGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtaG9tZW5ldC1iYWJlbC1wcm9maWxlLTA2 LnR4dCANClJldmlld2VyOiBSb24gQm9uaWNhDQpSZXZpZXcgRGF0ZTogTWFyY2ggNSwgMjAxOCAN CklFVEYgTEMgRW5kIERhdGU6IGRhdGUtaWYta25vd24gDQpJbnRlbmRlZCBTdGF0dXM6IFN0YW5k YXJkcyBUcmFjaw0KDQpTdW1tYXJ5OiANCg0KTm8gaXNzdWVzIGZvdW5kLiBUaGlzIGRvY3VtZW50 IGlzIHJlYWR5IGZvciBwdWJsaWNhdGlvbi4NCg0KQ29tbWVudHM6DQoNClRoZSBkcmFmdCBpcyB3 ZWxsLXdyaXR0ZW4gYW5kIGNvbXByZWhlbnNpYmxlLg0KDQpUaGUgZHJhZnQgZGVmaW5lcyBhIHJl cXVpcmVkIHN1YnNldCBvZiBCYWJlbCBmZWF0dXJlcyBmb3IgdXNlIGluIEhvbWVuZXRzLiBHaXZl biB0aGUgdG9waWMsIGl0IGlzIHZlcnkgZGlmZmljdWx0IHRvIGFyZ3VlIHdpdGggaXRzIGNvbmNs dXNpb24uDQoNCk1ham9yIElzc3VlczoNCg0KTm9uZQ0KDQpNaW5vciBJc3N1ZXM6DQoNCk5vbmUN Cg0KTml0czoNCg0KTm9uZQ0K From nobody Mon Mar 5 15:32:39 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF49212EB4F for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 15:32:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.021 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.021 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ovsienko.info Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QrdSKW-lgGeB for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 15:32:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from sender-of-o51.zoho.com (sender-of-o51.zoho.com [135.84.80.216]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CDF512EAED for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 15:32:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1520292732; s=zohomail; d=ovsienko.info; i=denis@ovsienko.info; h=Date:From:To:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; l=2010; bh=l7YB0Th9ZXQI961W8Xq+nz4D2D2GErtpaXI8ijqt5ds=; b=XUUlqzkgCIUd2Lz6ej1bv0VxMRiAaijqZjccx1DPIsXsWrgxxe7jDhxn/k/fu434 1fFCwxRzjwFJqDqZx+2p5oIiwVJNAA4kDwVuzhIp+UIglSVG55mo1E0YPRbxuLFhOJ5 E5MXydvosPzQ8OaAYZVibT7uTr2f4YMxf28qxASw= Received: from mail.zoho.com by mx.zohomail.com with SMTP id 1520292732079732.8193864818954; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 15:32:12 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2018 23:32:12 +0000 From: Denis Ovsienko To: "Babel at IETF" Message-ID: <161f8821cae.ef5bcd9b35318.2662935191627573024@ovsienko.info> In-Reply-To: <160f6b756ca.10c9bc6d850758.4084857834173384325@ovsienko.info> References: <160f6b756ca.10c9bc6d850758.4084857834173384325@ovsienko.info> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: Medium User-Agent: Zoho Mail X-Mailer: Zoho Mail Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] 7298bis X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2018 23:32:30 -0000 ---- On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 22:08:18 +0000 Denis Ovsienko wrote ---- >Hello list. > >This is to answer the question I have received directly, because it relates to this WG work. > >I would like to see for myself how well 7298bis would work with the current 6126bis, for that I will need to resolve the issue previously discussed on the list and if it works on paper and in the code, it will need to become a working group document (the currently missing security reference). > >If you have any input to make in this regard, please reply back to the list. Hello again. Good news, there is a feasible solution to the canned replay attack, that's what Babel speakers would need to do in addition to RFC 7298: 1. Echo remote TS/PC number back in the IHU TLVs they send. 2. Maintain a table that records at what point in time what local TS/PC number had been issued. The key points here is to index by timestamp, to keep the index unique and to record only the first TS/PC number for any given timestamp. 3. Use that received (echoed) per-IHU TS/PC number to compare with the local issued TS/PC numbers from the table. This way it becomes possible to have a simple parameter that controls the maximum lag in the TS/PC number space, but in units of real time seconds and regardless of packet rate. draft-ovsienko-babel-rfc7298bis-00 describes this solution in more detail, its differences against RFC 7298 are: * the above arrangements specified in a more formal manner: new sections 3.8, 3.9, 4.4; updated sections 5.3 and 5.4; * assorted minor fixups to make it a more modern document. It remains to be done to review the text that discusses Babel extensions, IANA considerations, cryptographic hash algorithms and the likes that have meaningfully changed since 2014. If the working group is happy with the described solution and is interested to adopt this I-D, I can make the remaining fixups and try to focus on the running code part of this work. Cheers. -- Denis Ovsienko From nobody Tue Mar 6 07:03:44 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5F2812741D for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 07:03:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.011 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=toke.dk Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YwzTZ8c88A75 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 07:03:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [IPv6:2001:470:dc45:1000::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E569E127076 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 07:03:40 -0800 (PST) From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1520348618; bh=QXMbi4SsAtaafEc5tUug316AFCLrRKINE8MBZTKjlcI=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=lc/y+6NDjF7iZ/rE3FSByXHXI6Cdr2ebiKzqxv0sVLxHyvFexcqeIP8+BOz+xECTT Rulsd3huu/ZDLoMfkrLNKc9uktXi8UjXEOQh4S3fiU+TG9PoOVBz33t21+m+aVdmig M9d9+0Sxg3O57hQr9Z78VUF0fLaBKaI2++R2nIEwHfof29iX7bwLscc6drqbVprsyX GdK7HF1P/8U/0gys/rlngdD3E2i3Rb7Q9NlBXaKI6z08lwWcjr5PZN46LQC0GHgLPD u9Fv2X4RNL6plAjApIOLpcQ4Yhqex2NSmerrOkfZrA0OlphcDW9XpfeJEVJe+O6a1d b22N1Sqo9baVA== To: Denis Ovsienko , Babel at IETF In-Reply-To: <161f8821cae.ef5bcd9b35318.2662935191627573024@ovsienko.info> References: <160f6b756ca.10c9bc6d850758.4084857834173384325@ovsienko.info> <161f8821cae.ef5bcd9b35318.2662935191627573024@ovsienko.info> Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2018 16:03:38 +0100 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <87a7vl1c1h.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] 7298bis X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2018 15:03:43 -0000 Denis Ovsienko writes: > ---- On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 22:08:18 +0000 Denis Ovsienko wrote ---- >>Hello list. >> >>This is to answer the question I have received directly, because it relates to this WG work. >> >>I would like to see for myself how well 7298bis would work with the current 6126bis, for that I will need to resolve the issue previously discussed on the list and if it works on paper and in the code, it will need to become a working group document (the currently missing security reference). >> >>If you have any input to make in this regard, please reply back to the list. > > Hello again. > > Good news, there is a feasible solution to the canned replay attack, > that's what Babel speakers would need to do in addition to RFC 7298: Awesome! > draft-ovsienko-babel-rfc7298bis-00 describes this solution in more detail, its differences against RFC 7298 are: > * the above arrangements specified in a more formal manner: new sections 3.8, 3.9, 4.4; updated sections 5.3 and 5.4; > * assorted minor fixups to make it a more modern document. Hmm, I am not quite sure I quite understand the details of what you are proposing from those updates; but I would have to re-read the whole thing to be sure. I'll see if I can find the time to do that soonish :) > It remains to be done to review the text that discusses Babel > extensions, IANA considerations, cryptographic hash algorithms and the > likes that have meaningfully changed since 2014. If the working group > is happy with the described solution and is interested to adopt this > I-D, I can make the remaining fixups and try to focus on the running > code part of this work. I think I probably have some opinions one the details once I've had a chance to read it again (and maybe even try to implement it), but other than that, cool! :) -Toke From nobody Sat Mar 10 06:06:44 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1E8C1205F0 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2018 06:06:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LAwkUnu3OzKR for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2018 06:06:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2D5612008A for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2018 06:06:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:1]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/75695) with ESMTP id w2AE6c3J029455 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2018 15:06:38 +0100 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay2/75695) with ESMTP id w2AE6eMG000789 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2018 15:06:40 +0100 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CF2DEB6AA for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2018 15:06:38 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id SY5IAYtiFpOj for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2018 15:06:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from trurl.irif.fr (unknown [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9691CEB6AC for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2018 15:06:35 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 15:06:35 +0100 Message-ID: <87y3j03tzo.wl-jch@irif.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: babel@ietf.org User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]); Sat, 10 Mar 2018 15:06:38 +0100 (CET) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.141]); Sat, 10 Mar 2018 15:06:40 +0100 (CET) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 5AA3E66E.002 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-Miltered: at potemkin with ID 5AA3E670.002 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5AA3E66E.002 from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/null/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5AA3E670.002 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5AA3E66E.002 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5AA3E670.002 on potemkin.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Archived-At: Subject: [babel] Babel over unicast X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 14:06:42 -0000 Hi, I've just pushed the code to run Babel over unicast. Antonin is using this for his DTLS code, so it's rather important if we're serious about DTLS. The current code sends Hellos and IHUs over multicast, and all other TLVs over unicast. This has two consequences: 1. I never use the unicast Hellos extension; I'm still not convinced that it should stay in the spec, I'm waiting for somebody to actually show it's useful; 2. Hellos and IHUs won't be protected by DTLS. I'd like some security specialist to convince me whether that's a problem. -- Juliusz From nobody Sat Mar 10 13:00:23 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D97BF12751F for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2018 13:00:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.311 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=apple.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z5q8Jk1u3QVF for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2018 13:00:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-in22.apple.com (mail-out22.apple.com [17.171.2.32]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 356AB1201F8 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2018 13:00:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=apple.com; s=mailout2048s; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt; i=@apple.com; t=1520715619; x=2384629219; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-id:To:Cc:MIME-version:Content-type: Content-transfer-encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-reply-to:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=m3CmT1hQp+rimgU2vNDPvLdPVWytpZ6FGzCu4OQHpog=; b=0hKhrq/CxDZnQITok0R+HKaw8hzm2UN1KIryII+DhiqQz/cxuHJcorxHDMnck5jQ GLtfrulvkYE3EZMoXuIhi8TwtEEfvaR7LwoRf7B9DwybXTRI/DY6whSFljPHF7nV MNse/IMosL8NlNn7vnET/PizTYF5XFwG2W0i3cEnRmagQRnvA3O8P9k72sUxjH3t T65dPsc+ABcN1FYrjvQrolrSsRYokGAIL0JayD+HvTYCwQrGytn5Ds5Gsvy9hpcF ejw0FFZs9++dfwmvBY8+H7v9g0BR0swmq+riUull5qaVq9Ozo4fCN+vi9QrHbdJN EMS1eVFYZq7pihOS8KeqqQ==; Received: from relay8.apple.com (relay8.apple.com [17.128.113.102]) (using TLS with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail-in22.apple.com (Apple Secure Mail Relay) with SMTP id 9B.AD.11907.36744AA5; Sat, 10 Mar 2018 13:00:19 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: 11ab0216-325f09e000002e83-bc-5aa447636fa7 Received: from nwk-mmpp-sz12.apple.com (nwk-mmpp-sz12.apple.com [17.128.115.204]) by relay8.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id 1E.C3.10701.26744AA5; Sat, 10 Mar 2018 13:00:19 -0800 (PST) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Received: from [17.234.17.14] (unknown [17.234.17.14]) by nwk-mmpp-sz12.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 8.0.2.2.20180130 64bit (built Jan 30 2018)) with ESMTPSA id <0P5E00HO17OI2H00@nwk-mmpp-sz12.apple.com>; Sat, 10 Mar 2018 13:00:18 -0800 (PST) Sender: dschinazi@apple.com From: David Schinazi In-reply-to: <87y3j03tzo.wl-jch@irif.fr> Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 13:00:17 -0800 Cc: babel@ietf.org Message-id: References: <87y3j03tzo.wl-jch@irif.fr> To: Juliusz Chroboczek X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrJLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUi2FCYppvsviTK4PZsSYsti7pZLOa3LmNz YPJYsuQnk8fiLW8ZA5iiuGxSUnMyy1KL9O0SuDL+7tzEWtApXLF5yUXWBsZZ/F2MnBwSAiYS 8/fNZe5i5OIQEljLJLFo83xmmMS9k0uZIBKHGCWmtTUzgiR4BQQlfky+x9LFyMHBLCAvcfC8 LEiYWUBL4vujVhaI+n4miSUdC1lAEsIC0hJdF+6ygtQLC6hLTFjsB2KyAdUfWGMEYnIKaEj8 XCkIUswioCrx810nC8REIYkz12awQCy1kXjy5zoTiC0ENGTThKvsILaIgIrE8mnP2CEuVpKY /v02G8gFEgKNbBJrTmxhm8AoPAvJ0bMQjp6F5OgFjMyrGIVzEzNzdDPzjIz0EgsKclL1kvNz NzGCwno1k9gOxnuvDQ8xCnAwKvHwXlBcEiXEmlhWXJl7iFGag0VJnPfa88YoIYH0xJLU7NTU gtSi+KLSnNTiQ4xMHJxSDYxpbhcTmgNXOp4O5JvGsKPwylKPj2n3igw3XJtzY33g/qPtiZO9 U5jcDyexsXAWZzVEZuee+PZkuugl28KJ150nBBztn/FPee21rdXmPXc4f/e8YPbwYzonsIZx reGz8qcnOcp+VHkHaDEXpvfwd4S/vq7xZMPvnpAJy8/HlfCUaVerLDKI0VNiKc5INNRiLipO BAAkLb3UTAIAAA== X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrNLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUi2FB8RjfZfUmUwbqTzBZbFnWzWMxvXcbm wOSxZMlPJo/FW94yBjBFcdmkpOZklqUW6dslcGX83bmJtaBTuGLzkousDYyz+LsYOTkkBEwk 7p1cytTFyMUhJHCIUWJaWzMjSIJXQFDix+R7LF2MHBzMAvISB8/LgoSZBbQkvj9qZYGo72eS WNKxkAUkISwgLdF14S4rSL2wgLrEhMV+ICYbUP2BNUYgJqeAhsTPlYIgxSwCqhI/33WyQEwU kjhzbQYLxFIbiSd/rjOB2EJAQzZNuMoOYosIqEgsn/aMHeJiJYnp32+zTWAUmIXkzlkId85C cucCRuZVjAJFqTmJlRZ6iQUFOal6yfm5mxjBQViYtoOxabnVIUYBDkYlHl4NlSVRQqyJZcWV ucCA4GBWEuHtbVgcJcSbklhZlVqUH19UmpNafIhRmoNFSZzXQBIoJZCeWJKanZpakFoEk2Xi 4JRqYOzlnz7HppHR8PyvlGkXn1Ytr2SLi1LUTUjsN3MJDJiovDPO4J1VurqW4rO2osbC+9si Sq7/sFj8pur66v93k3kP/u/WOXVw2ZOvhrMv6CTzmBZvEHUov7Vi32Mt2e/T34cbfZXbE8K9 5l7hufSSCdrHP/GVv35y/nuJw6Tya0wc1ic/S367ZaHEUpyRaKjFXFScCABqCAERPgIAAA== Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Babel over unicast X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 21:00:22 -0000 Hi Juliusz, I wouldn't call myself a "security specialist", but I do think this can be a problem. In the rest of this email, I use "protected" to mean "protected by DTLS", as in encrypted, integrity-checked and authenticated. The most important aspect of this is to prevent tampering. Let's assume there's an attacker on an open Wi-Fi network Babel is running over. The attacker can see all unprotected Babel traffic, and they can send arbitrary payloads with spoofed source IP addresses. If you do not protect Hellos and IHUs this attacker can pretty easily cause a DoS attack. I think this will be a common scenario, and compromised IoT devices will likely be able to send this tampered traffic without actually being able to DoS by jamming the 2.4/5GHz signal. We could: - use multicast hellos for discovery of peers and ETX - send unicast hellos and IHUs protected - only let the multicast hellos influence our cost to within some bounds This allows us to fallback to solely protected traffic in the presence of an attacker. Random thought: we could imagine a scheme where we extract keys from DTLS that can be used to HMAC the unprotected multicast traffic, similar to RFC7298. Bottom line: we don't need to encrypt everything, but we need a way to prevent attackers from sending spoofed Hellos/IHUs with bad seqnos/intervals/costs that could disrupt neighbors that have authenticated each other and exchanged keys. I'll see how much of this I can implement in the coming week, because this is very academic until we have bits on the wire. David > On Mar 10, 2018, at 06:06, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > > Hi, > > I've just pushed the code to run Babel over unicast. Antonin is using > this for his DTLS code, so it's rather important if we're serious about > DTLS. > > The current code sends Hellos and IHUs over multicast, and all other TLVs > over unicast. This has two consequences: > > 1. I never use the unicast Hellos extension; I'm still not convinced > that it should stay in the spec, I'm waiting for somebody to actually > show it's useful; > 2. Hellos and IHUs won't be protected by DTLS. I'd like some security > specialist to convince me whether that's a problem. > > -- Juliusz > > _______________________________________________ > babel mailing list > babel@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel From nobody Sat Mar 10 13:43:41 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7661F1274D2 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2018 13:43:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FI5sh0tMmRmN for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2018 13:43:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47A7C120047 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2018 13:43:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:1]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/75695) with ESMTP id w2ALhVvh029170 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 10 Mar 2018 22:43:32 +0100 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay2/75695) with ESMTP id w2ALhXYM019363; Sat, 10 Mar 2018 22:43:33 +0100 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E691EB28B; Sat, 10 Mar 2018 22:43:31 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id NUpkbqheiGFs; Sat, 10 Mar 2018 22:43:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from trurl.irif.fr (unknown [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A7AB7EB274; Sat, 10 Mar 2018 22:43:30 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 22:43:30 +0100 Message-ID: <87k1ujobct.wl-jch@irif.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: David Schinazi Cc: babel@ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: <87y3j03tzo.wl-jch@irif.fr> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]); Sat, 10 Mar 2018 22:43:32 +0100 (CET) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.141]); Sat, 10 Mar 2018 22:43:33 +0100 (CET) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 5AA45183.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-Miltered: at potemkin with ID 5AA45185.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5AA45183.000 from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/null/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5AA45185.000 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5AA45183.000 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5AA45185.000 on potemkin.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Babel over unicast X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 21:43:39 -0000 > Let's assume there's an attacker on an open Wi-Fi network Babel is > running over. The attacker can see all unprotected Babel traffic, and > they can send arbitrary payloads with spoofed source IP addresses. If > you do not protect Hellos and IHUs this attacker can pretty easily cause > a DoS attack. Isn't that easier to do using neighbour discovery? I was under the impression that we're protecting against traffic redirection and, more generally, any attack that can cross routers. I am pretty sure that we're not supposed to be trying to protect against link-local DoS attacks, since that's obviously impossible in a universe where ND is not protected. (RFC 2461 Section 11 makes the amusing claim that "Confidentiality issues are addressed by the IP Security Architecture and the IP Encapsulating Security Payload documents". Its successor, RFC 4861, weasels its way out by merely stating that "Alternatively, IPsec can be used for IP layer authentication".) > I'll see how much of this I can implement in the coming week, Please do. I'm looking forward to having a good fight with you in London, and unless you've implemented it yourself, the fight won't be any good. -- Juliusz From nobody Sun Mar 11 09:38:46 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 815EA126C26 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2018 09:38:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0JNNTji5U-u3 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2018 09:38:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B7A7126579 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2018 09:38:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/75695) with ESMTP id w2BGceau004689; Sun, 11 Mar 2018 17:38:40 +0100 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B553EB28B; Sun, 11 Mar 2018 17:38:40 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id FyBf-thohdVv; Sun, 11 Mar 2018 17:38:39 +0100 (CET) Received: from trurl.irif.fr (unknown [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C856AEB274; Sun, 11 Mar 2018 17:38:37 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 17:38:37 +0100 Message-ID: <871sgq36uq.wl-jch@irif.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: babel-users@lists.alioth.debian.org, babel@ietf.org User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.138]); Sun, 11 Mar 2018 17:38:40 +0100 (CET) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 5AA55B90.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5AA55B90.000 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5AA55B90.000 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Archived-At: Subject: [babel] Babel over DTLS X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 16:38:44 -0000 17:34:25.800782 IP6 fe80::a6b6:7003:d50:6868.6696 > ff02::1:6.6696: babel 2 (8) hello 17:34:25.801038 IP6 fe80::a6b6:7003:d50:6868.6696 > fe80::d17a:7827:dae0:58f1.6696: babel invalid header 17:34:25.801075 IP6 fe80::a6b6:7003:d50:6868.6696 > ff02::1:6.6696: babel 2 (24) hello ihu 17:34:25.803681 IP6 fe80::d17a:7827:dae0:58f1.6696 > ff02::1:6.6696: babel 2 (24) hello ihu 17:34:25.803944 IP6 fe80::a6b6:7003:d50:6868.6696 > ff02::1:6.6696: babel 2 (24) hello ihu 17:34:25.804240 IP6 fe80::d17a:7827:dae0:58f1.6696 > fe80::a6b6:7003:d50:6868.6696: babel invalid header 17:34:25.804298 IP6 fe80::d17a:7827:dae0:58f1.6696 > ff02::1:6.6696: babel 2 (40) hello ihu ihu 17:34:25.804518 IP6 fe80::a6b6:7003:d50:6868.6696 > fe80::d17a:7827:dae0:58f1.6696: babel invalid header From nobody Wed Mar 14 17:05:37 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5069129C56 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 17:05:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lLVCJlfYtk-A for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 17:05:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C03B126FDC for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 17:05:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:1]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/75695) with ESMTP id w2F05VQE004754 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 15 Mar 2018 01:05:31 +0100 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay2/75695) with ESMTP id w2F05W2m004705; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 01:05:32 +0100 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBF39EB274; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 01:05:30 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id UEw5gxmAOKJ4; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 01:05:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from trurl.irif.fr (unknown [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AE31EEB3AC; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 01:05:29 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 01:05:29 +0100 Message-ID: <878tau6w52.wl-jch@irif.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: babel-users@lists.alioth.debian.org CC: babel@ietf.org User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]); Thu, 15 Mar 2018 01:05:31 +0100 (CET) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.141]); Thu, 15 Mar 2018 01:05:32 +0100 (CET) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 5AA9B8CB.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-Miltered: at potemkin with ID 5AA9B8CC.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5AA9B8CB.000 from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/null/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5AA9B8CC.001 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5AA9B8CB.000 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5AA9B8CC.001 on potemkin.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Archived-At: Subject: [babel] Babel meeting at IETF 101 -- remote participation X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 00:05:36 -0000 Dear all, According to the current version of the IETF 101 agenda, the Babel meeting ought to take place on Thursday 22 March 2018 at 18:10 London (winter) time Park Suite https://tools.ietf.org/agenda/101/ Remote participation is possible, and warmly welcomed. Please see https://ietf.org/how/meetings/101/remote/ You need to register in advance, but remote registration is free. You don't need to enable your webcam (which is nice if you're in your pajamas at that time), in which case your questions and comments will be read out by a friendly Jabber scribe. See you all, or at least your avatars, on Thursday 22 March. -- Juliusz From nobody Fri Mar 23 04:17:10 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B95812D873; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 04:17:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E_BxRe_BV_O9; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 04:16:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io0-x236.google.com (mail-io0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B306412D7F1; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 04:16:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io0-x236.google.com with SMTP id l3so14732441iog.0; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 04:16:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ekO8k5j1ZNixB0J7X3zjHFO9yco/WAFTUy/RxEwx2nI=; b=PSLrM/5wpwEw6Wvo15KSlp7M/o/DxtNDcr6FMvqvLoI+pgPYrEWl/1CVvVPds1EFVj JhD1w2bbLT00Hn05IiM1Hva+R2xwcqgYBCutuUQoEBX+gA5ZBl183uZaaRKqKe6h2ywX Jp6DDHkHPSOGIjOw4r0jHoOjlsAYLFvWe/tflqNbUwGh/It+zvBjFJzDVGMHq+CXwjgs PqTQMpwVOH/nMxu8tMLwxzwRAqKXgj+57a/6M+iWQiEcwT//LzJWExkdSfPSi6PKUkWY CfvWuAJdOSSYs4Mk5ZbiRKmTkfS/EQ3IJsDTuvdgJlgL6qQSqhMnPOXmJQ27mc4ocLwg W3gg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ekO8k5j1ZNixB0J7X3zjHFO9yco/WAFTUy/RxEwx2nI=; b=rWzhXqWeimMThpaB5Xph1qe95sftpT0Y47l1/ts9pG8QpMit97bZjk30fMlUXnPyVY T2hHbVDmmoUFsb4XQXW+efs/s3Nkoh7b96mgrMBx1Yn1S4MWdmtNffgbQRooSYsplmRo p6b0gp97dYMX8IcHxTnb8Jscrs7YAqGnrTUD01jSwhl/NFLuI/rfkeaEqvaa97JBXNeK GuKGqU6ZgejGQrItiS4RHSjIoLuauZQAIo2jmhRpYazjW19/2VPnrmKWn6FRPXkcrbgQ 5MWiJ/c0s1HueSvI1f0hU+KECQZhDF0HN1pyzAPSzbvnNedq6OqQMk3BrSmd+d8NyDZ1 esEQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7GcOCjRYclD5G3buXz//lZYfU4e2A1wNoKuBOYeRCu2fn7dHxrU hEp4ucGpaTu+ZpsofvOmK2F/c4QH/k+ZRcjnbSEti6Mv X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELtNqzhY4S1WX/pLakcuZq8JpXQsUPXrHphn9UAkBBvXiGJM08rq5nL882k2LkrdyFkTXzYJRsTTDEvaEjbpZP0= X-Received: by 10.107.12.97 with SMTP id w94mr30141651ioi.132.1521803814776; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 04:16:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.58.193 with HTTP; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 04:16:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Donald Eastlake Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 07:16:38 -0400 Message-ID: To: Babel at IETF Cc: babel-chairs@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Archived-At: Subject: [babel] Draft BABEL WG minutes uploaded X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 11:17:09 -0000 Hi, Draft minutes from yesterday's BABEL WG meeting have been uploaded to the meeting materials page: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/materials/ Thanks to Barbara Stark and Russ White for taking minutes. Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com From nobody Sat Mar 24 18:30:28 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71735127076 for ; Sat, 24 Mar 2018 18:30:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jrNFaRUwZxJl for ; Sat, 24 Mar 2018 18:30:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2DA3D124D6C for ; Sat, 24 Mar 2018 18:30:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:1]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/75695) with ESMTP id w2P1UMoT031006 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2018 03:30:22 +0200 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay2/75695) with ESMTP id w2P1UN3b018155 for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2018 03:30:23 +0200 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4DD5EB340 for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2018 03:30:21 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id yZJaHV5kTC4X for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2018 03:30:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from trurl.irif.fr (unknown [5.148.108.181]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DE2E4EB28B for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2018 03:30:20 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 02:30:26 +0100 Message-ID: <87k1u1uekt.wl-jch@irif.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: babel@ietf.org User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]); Sun, 25 Mar 2018 03:30:22 +0200 (CEST) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.141]); Sun, 25 Mar 2018 03:30:23 +0200 (CEST) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 5AB6FBAE.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-Miltered: at potemkin with ID 5AB6FBAF.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5AB6FBAE.000 from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/null/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5AB6FBAF.000 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5AB6FBAE.000 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5AB6FBAF.000 on potemkin.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Archived-At: Subject: [babel] Work to do X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 01:30:26 -0000 Hello to all, We've had a productive IETF, and therefore we've got a lot of work to do. My understanding of the current situation. 1. draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis This has been in last call, like, forever. We're still waiting for IESG review, let's please make it happen. Donald, Russ, could you please poke the responsible AD? (I'm still not happy about Unicast Hellos, but I understand I'm in the minority, so I'll shut up. Er, no, I'll keep complaining loudly, but I won't block the process.) 2. draft-ietf-babel-source-specific This is ready for standardisation. Joel Halpern has reviewed -02 and -03, and the -03 review was positive. Last call, please? 3. draft-ovsienko-babel-rfc7298bis Denis has produced a -00. I believe that Toke is interested both in reviewing the draft and implementing it, and so am I. The subject of adoption was raised at the meeting, and nobody objected. So: 3.1 is anyone opposed to adopting this draft? 3.2 Denis, do you want to produce a new revision before adoption, or are we welcome to adopt? 3.3 Toke, do you want to review before adoption, or are we welcome to adopt? I am in favour of adopting straight away. 4. Babel over DTLS Three points of contention: 4.1 does DTLS go over the Babel port, or do we request a different port for Babel over DTLS? 4.2 is the client port equal to the server port, or do we use ephemeral ports on the client side? 4.3 do we leave Hello/IHU unprotected, or do we send Hello/IHU over unicast and do something smart for link quality estimation? I think that Antonin and David should get in touch, and produce a compromise draft that it not necessarily consensual (perhaps with all reasonable choices outlined). Once we have a draft, we can ask for adoption, and work out the details at the working group level. 5. draft-ietf-babel-information-model Barbara's working copy (post -01) makes a lot of sense to me. I suggest she should submit -02 with the changes we discussed, and have it reviewed by Toke, David, and hopefully Markus. Since Toke's implementation is the most complete, his input is likely to be the most useful (and critical). My wishes for a safe return home, and kisses on both cheeks to all of you, -- Juliusz From nobody Sat Mar 24 18:46:55 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50408127076; Sat, 24 Mar 2018 18:46:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RoHYf-zd2xOG; Sat, 24 Mar 2018 18:46:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E25E1124D6C; Sat, 24 Mar 2018 18:46:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/75695) with ESMTP id w2P1kpqP000443; Sun, 25 Mar 2018 03:46:51 +0200 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEF8EEB28B; Sun, 25 Mar 2018 03:46:50 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id GMDpwY1uGYJM; Sun, 25 Mar 2018 03:46:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from trurl.irif.fr (unknown [5.148.108.181]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BDF39EB225; Sun, 25 Mar 2018 03:46:49 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 02:46:55 +0100 Message-ID: <87h8p5udtc.wl-jch@irif.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: Donald Eastlake Cc: Babel at IETF , babel-chairs@ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.138]); Sun, 25 Mar 2018 03:46:51 +0200 (CEST) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 5AB6FF8B.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5AB6FF8B.000 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5AB6FF8B.000 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Draft BABEL WG minutes uploaded X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 01:46:54 -0000 > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/materials/ > Thanks to Barbara Stark and Russ White for taking minutes. « David: Most implementations do not support DTLS; not comfortable with changing DTLS to support this protocol » I believe that what David meant is that most implementations do not implement the SHOULD in Section 4.2.8 of RFC 6347. From nobody Sun Mar 25 09:33:26 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE594126D0C for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2018 09:33:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.01 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=toke.dk Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5mxddr9v7TWG for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2018 09:33:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [52.28.52.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E49231200F1 for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2018 09:33:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1521995600; bh=DHgMr8EbFvjJ3AQMFrp0jSuNGjFeA0Bwvp4am6chNog=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=jC4qKCryzv7WMOm+6hJzVA13STIIjXY3i38Xt3vbNGiESz+N6/qt4ybcEChHwHOF2 Bp01y7i0QAYHC0Yx+p8pQD2seb50N2+jTLapp+MkNP6N3vm6p5LmLf7W66HGuix29a w2MJAckcwrsy0QlzTfWbDRtpEi/YkLVo2hINFFvVHKAZw9uum2Zi90goxm0c+Nl3B8 kwbDhwW6gwNGvfS4BBPbf5DHsDFNgpgKN7MRQnnw+SqJVXuXU8IqgArDt9b3hZz0f/ VQE2+1zgVBG8DnXPYFHNw9wekah5ViBP/peKHnD6j6Q/kV7OWyvygc1QUAPOj9PN8p ciBZoRF8IN7RA== To: Juliusz Chroboczek , babel@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <87k1u1uekt.wl-jch@irif.fr> References: <87k1u1uekt.wl-jch@irif.fr> Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 18:33:20 +0200 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <87muywf73j.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Work to do X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 16:33:25 -0000 Juliusz Chroboczek writes: > 3.3 Toke, do you want to review before adoption, or are we welcome > to adopt? No reason to block adoption; I'll get around to reviewing it eventually, but probably not in the next couple of months. And I am quite confident that we can work out any issues that may crop up after adoption. > 5. draft-ietf-babel-information-model > > Barbara's working copy (post -01) makes a lot of sense to me. I suggest > she should submit -02 with the changes we discussed, and have it reviewed > by Toke, David, and hopefully Markus. Since Toke's implementation is the > most complete, his input is likely to be the most useful (and > critical). I'll review it, but as above, not now :) -Toke From nobody Mon Mar 26 02:04:23 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D18731243F6 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 02:04:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mm5mCUbmVh80 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 02:04:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.157.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B08991204DA for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 02:04:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0083689.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0083689.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id w2Q8tVE4041111; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 05:04:19 -0400 Received: from alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp6.sbc.com [144.160.229.23]) by m0083689.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2gxe02a9mu-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 26 Mar 2018 05:04:19 -0400 Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w2Q94IMG024332; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 05:04:18 -0400 Received: from zlp30485.vci.att.com (zlp30485.vci.att.com [135.47.91.178]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w2Q945oj024122; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 05:04:07 -0400 Received: from zlp30485.vci.att.com (zlp30485.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp30485.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id CF78A40006FC; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 09:04:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from GAALPA1MSGHUBAF.ITServices.sbc.com (unknown [130.8.218.155]) by zlp30485.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTPS id BAD3840006C3; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 09:04:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.5.71]) by GAALPA1MSGHUBAF.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.8.218.155]) with mapi id 14.03.0361.001; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 05:04:05 -0400 From: "STARK, BARBARA H" To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Toke_H=F8iland-J=F8rgensen?= , "Juliusz Chroboczek" , "babel@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [babel] Work to do Thread-Index: AQHTw9jjv4qrnhT/j0ipnLGluNsRxqPhaVQAgADRg0A= Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 09:04:04 +0000 Message-ID: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DD54B21@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> References: <87k1u1uekt.wl-jch@irif.fr> <87muywf73j.fsf@toke.dk> In-Reply-To: <87muywf73j.fsf@toke.dk> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [130.10.154.242] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2018-03-26_04:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=791 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1803260099 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Work to do X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 09:04:22 -0000 > > 5. draft-ietf-babel-information-model > > > > Barbara's working copy (post -01) makes a lot of sense to me. I > > suggest she should submit -02 with the changes we discussed, and have > > it reviewed by Toke, David, and hopefully Markus. Since Toke's > > implementation is the most complete, his input is likely to be the > > most useful (and critical). >=20 > I'll review it, but as above, not now :) >=20 > -Toke And, please, not before I post -02... Barbara From nobody Mon Mar 26 07:21:31 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65EAA12DA4A for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 07:21:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.331 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.331 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=apple.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZMluJdjt2r_B for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 07:21:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-in2.euro.apple.com (mail-in2.euro.apple.com [17.72.148.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6D12127863 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 07:21:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=apple.com; s=mailout2048s; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt; i=@apple.com; t=1522074086; x=2385987686; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-id:To:Cc:MIME-version:Content-type: Content-transfer-encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-reply-to:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=d2ePCRv72K8q2gU0ewi87fy68oqTcYxdAXel/aDW/7M=; b=NefbApglY1ebsIsmMUWE2yp5PwEvZrhDQizOKvWf/0QHWFAESSAypex5ps1S3BXd ZTWwUPRfzGYbuHYdraZTsCw+sTa/T+q9xqdNP815hftwLB3O5+DE/5IBVN5wGId6 8VMNzlTi3MrkTNIyc5FCtgOkeESGzERZfa384MrO37xR/pzUI6ILQ+tqf0H7/9Wv vkcqACOfG/lFjMdx+MDW42GBvzk/P3vaprL/FXVKOj8fNzqpO3TKmlwA7bacAGcs Gt/dmVx3tmted0YvzV+AarrSyNwCvKxr1utxzbGlssd5xgBrsHNP9aUZS5rJcBpi Ep1mszdofl/L4RlvqunJyQ==; Received: from relay2.euro.apple.com (relay2.euro.apple.com [17.66.55.12]) (using TLS with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail-in2.euro.apple.com (Apple Secure Mail Relay) with SMTP id CC.CF.28874.6E109BA5; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:21:26 +0100 (BST) X-AuditID: 1148940c-d70db9e0000070ca-c1-5ab901e624a5 Received: from crk-mmpp-sz03.euro.apple.com ( [17.66.12.165]) (using TLS with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by relay2.euro.apple.com (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 3C.6E.16087.6E109BA5; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:21:26 +0100 (BST) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Received: from [17.235.233.180] (unknown [17.235.233.180]) by crk-mmpp-sz03.euro.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 8.0.2.2.20180130 64bit (built Jan 30 2018)) with ESMTPSA id <0P67000JPBVMX000@crk-mmpp-sz03.euro.apple.com>; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:21:26 +0100 (IST) Sender: dschinazi@apple.com From: David Schinazi In-reply-to: <87h8p5udtc.wl-jch@irif.fr> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 16:21:22 +0200 Cc: Donald Eastlake , babel-chairs@ietf.org, Babel at IETF Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Message-id: <9D93DB1C-ACA1-4306-8694-5CC4338221CB@apple.com> References: <87h8p5udtc.wl-jch@irif.fr> To: Juliusz Chroboczek X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrKLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUi6GTOo/uMcWeUwcynRhane2+xWGxZ1M1i cXC7psX81mVsDiweO2fdZfdYsuQnk8fiLW8ZA5ijuGxSUnMyy1KL9O0SuDJ+T//GVDCZteLo +4csDYwLWLoYOTgkBEwkzn9k7WLk4hAS2MEkcazrDXMXIydY/M/mFewQiRVMEv+v/WMBSfAK CEr8mHwPrJlZQF1iypRciJq5TBLHe2axgtQIC0hLdF24C2WbSPx4d5ENpJ5NQEviwBojkDCn gIbEiu797CA2i4CqxMzjl6FGxksc2xcAEmYW0JZ48u4CK8RWG4ndzRfAyoUECiQ+/1wDdqaI gIrE8mnP2CFOVpKY/v02G4Q9h01i+W7WCYzCs5AcPQvh6FlINixgZF7FKJ6bmJmjm5lnpJda WpSvl1hQkJOql5yfu4kRFPgeU3h2MF48aHiIUYCDUYmH98D/7VFCrIllxZW5hxglOJiVRHj5 5u+IEuJNSaysSi3Kjy8qzUktPsQozcGiJM6b8tgvSkggPbEkNTs1tSC1CCbLxMEp1cC42tpM 5JnSrcx1sn8y35zO63BznL38fu2CxfXasYsVjtY+8E69KX40pqfuoLbNnZCqfRdrOv/0WDwt Kyq/fNbiRX/TL87sy/ppaw8FzVlkpDL3W96m0MN3iq0aitdoeOfcqXp5WLbdPyxG5J/QPsuM la/8t5g/27akmNGlb70a66uWHSaaa5cpsRRnJBpqMRcVJwIAxWI/4XgCAAA= X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrPLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUi6MSzVPcZ484og8Ub9S1O995isdiyqJvF 4uB2TYv5rcvYHFg8ds66y+6xZMlPJo/FW94yBjBHcdmkpOZklqUW6dslcGX8nv6NqWAya8XR 9w9ZGhgXsHQxcnJICJhI/Nm8gr2LkYtDSGAFk8T/a//AErwCghI/Jt8Dsjk4mAXUJaZMyYWo mcskcbxnFitIjbCAtETXhbtQtonEj3cX2UDq2QS0JA6sMQIJcwpoSKzo3s8OYrMIqErMPH4Z amS8xLF9ASBhZgFtiSfvLrBCbLWR2N18AaxcSKBA4vPPNcwgtoiAisTyac/YIU5Wkpj+/Tbb BEaBWUgOnYVw6CwkUxcwMq9iFC1KzUmsNNJLLS3K10ssKMhJ1UvOz93ECA5Wc54djK8OGh5i FOBgVOLh5fi+I0qINbGsuDL3EKMEB7OSCC/ffKAQb0piZVVqUX58UWlOavEhRmkOFiVxXltf /ighgfTEktTs1NSC1CKYLBMHp1QDo8zVV1MObixh28CtdUWIufPXCrdTu+u0+Ir2PeHVy7hr czHl7qdIDfPqqQK3PwTk+eYJJ/g0bL2aErr4YuWvKdGfAj5k37KXL1myhW1lT/qNgICDabdz /9+8Y8+1iNt/6c4Nn1tV3F506j9XeLbA8H735fUr7e8rnv8XfcZnzfkVL/+s5oxc9UaJpTgj 0VCLuag4EQDvBO+VUgIAAA== Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Draft BABEL WG minutes uploaded X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 14:21:31 -0000 Yes, thanks Juliusz for catching that. David > On Mar 25, 2018, at 03:46, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: >=20 >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/materials/ >> Thanks to Barbara Stark and Russ White for taking minutes. >=20 > =C2=AB David: Most implementations do not support DTLS; not = comfortable with > changing DTLS to support this protocol =C2=BB >=20 > I believe that what David meant is that most implementations do not > implement the SHOULD in Section 4.2.8 of RFC 6347. >=20 > _______________________________________________ > babel mailing list > babel@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel From nobody Mon Mar 26 07:28:05 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C18961250B8 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 07:28:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.311 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=apple.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GqVokaDFckgb for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 07:28:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-in3.euro.apple.com (mail-in.euro.apple.com [17.72.148.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8525D12420B for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 07:28:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=apple.com; s=mailout2048s; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt; i=@apple.com; t=1522074480; x=2385988080; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-id:To:Cc:MIME-version:Content-type: Content-transfer-encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-reply-to:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=ncfdg3osKAbwdoqKg9UOcnxUpFMZb2egdU00njk50us=; b=swuagDY5W0G7UZbyk9BUVYOqTHNcHi4sHTbK0ZoEfoz+3ud/2DCJF9IRJLL+7q/0 TyUzU1q5V9Y4VEPpVaK53y5vCFOLhHu1SwNtigl/WY0axSk5ptXMbbbdJKzdTG+F NguYnWz1HGkn8/VBlpaHwGQvNVxKeAnghnQQtLzjE5RQutpfUC4li+Ul+CrOjMz0 M6ZcJDU7yZ/okflfFGQr/sPXHnMxGcsN0jIzcb2LGnBPjmlhgQCtcfOmLF7TKjFS EwoPOFrdiZbpZtS+W4DHHaqN+hTnZJeURf6wGFeTpZzQpzlDD4oIpc7wikYWeC4h X+4280H3dhpPSeVNCgPV1A==; Received: from relay2.euro.apple.com ( [17.66.55.12]) (using TLS with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail-in3.euro.apple.com (Apple Secure Mail Relay) with SMTP id CA.53.06134.07309BA5; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:28:00 +0100 (BST) X-AuditID: 1148940d-d1bf19e0000017f6-e4-5ab90370302f Received: from crk-mmpp-sz03.euro.apple.com ( [17.66.12.165]) (using TLS with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by relay2.euro.apple.com (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 8D.EE.16087.07309BA5; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:28:00 +0100 (BST) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Received: from [17.235.233.180] (unknown [17.235.233.180]) by crk-mmpp-sz03.euro.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 8.0.2.2.20180130 64bit (built Jan 30 2018)) with ESMTPSA id <0P67000S6C6MX000@crk-mmpp-sz03.euro.apple.com>; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:28:00 +0100 (IST) Sender: dschinazi@apple.com From: David Schinazi In-reply-to: <87k1u1uekt.wl-jch@irif.fr> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 16:27:57 +0200 Cc: babel@ietf.org Message-id: <27BE2E61-E9A8-4A8E-AC10-E39621A83C3C@apple.com> References: <87k1u1uekt.wl-jch@irif.fr> To: Juliusz Chroboczek , =?utf-8?Q?Antonin_D=C3=A9cimo?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrALMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUi6GTOo1vAvDPKoL1Z1+LIlmuMFlsWdbNY zG9dxubA7LFz1l12jyVLfjJ5LN7yljGAOYrLJiU1J7MstUjfLoErY9qjUywFG/gqOidtZG1g nMTdxcjBISFgIrHtskcXIxeHkMBiJokj7W/Zuxg5weL7jnUwgdhCAiuYJJ4+sgKxeQUEJX5M vscC0sssIC9x8LwsSJhZQEvi+6NWFog5c5kk1u3vZwRJCAtIS3RduMsKYctLPJ95BayXDajh wBojkDCngIZEz44bLCA2i4CqxPbbV9khZgpJnLk2gwVirY3EhB+vmEBahQTUJY7vKQQxRQSS JFbuS4I4WEli+vfbbCAXSAhMYZM4OH0a4wRG4VlIjp6FcPQsJEcvYGRexSiem5iZo5uZZ6yX WlqUr5dYUJCTqpecn7uJERTuHlN4dzBeP2h4iFGAg1GJh/fA/+1RQqyJZcWVuYcYJTiYlUR4 +ebviBLiTUmsrEotyo8vKs1JLT7EKM3BoiTOm/LYL0pIID2xJDU7NbUgtQgmy8TBKdXAOO+a duKO/A+RNyNld8S9W/+tZMqW6NbN1t8kJZjN81+9ceELW8UU9dHix6xbESbHy583Xgq/o2Pt pa9vefBYld/p4i03rh05f/HKzwdPTatu3duvXN+/WESxW0ct2Xdi0BW3dY6JmSxijVe9rqZ/ OyfxWllpfynH73+MN5YW5qi/FFyclnDXS4mlOCPRUIu5qDgRACugxJlzAgAA X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrJLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUi6MSzVLeAeWeUwep1WhZHtlxjtNiyqJvF Yn7rMjYHZo+ds+6yeyxZ8pPJY/GWt4wBzFFcNimpOZllqUX6dglcGdMenWIp2MBX0TlpI2sD 4yTuLkZODgkBE4l9xzqYQGwhgRVMEk8fWYHYvAKCEj8m32PpYuTgYBaQlzh4XhYkzCygJfH9 UStQmAuofC6TxLr9/YwgCWEBaYmuC3dZIWx5ieczr4D1sgE1HFhjBBLmFNCQ6NlxgwXEZhFQ ldh++yo7xEwhiTPXZrBArLWRmPDjFRNIq5CAusTxPYUgpohAksTKfUkQBytJTP9+m20Co8As JHfOQrhzFpI7FzAyr2IULUrNSaw00kstLcrXSywoyEnVS87P3cQIDlBznh2Mrw4aHmIU4GBU 4uHl+L4jSog1say4MvcQowQHs5IIL998oBBvSmJlVWpRfnxRaU5q8SFGaQ4WJXFeW1/+KCGB 9MSS1OzU1ILUIpgsEwenVAOjQ/GTuH/PxSN+NjXIn0n+tL8h31F0gYnIIx9WJslTt3nOhLZr XrZ/9dLtdtr7ta85fY/Ir996X/+i4sof8UrcC3Yw7fgf/PKP8WUx6VU8PSIy3DYacjxnvn/0 0D8tNF3zWuvLPxkana5apmrx3fvMjvS4Ji4V/8ZhnN1/JdHLdGr/9HM85deUWIozEg21mIuK EwH3CIGsTAIAAA== Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Work to do X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 14:28:04 -0000 > On Mar 25, 2018, at 03:30, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > > 1. draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis > > This has been in last call, like, forever. We're still waiting for IESG > review, let's please make it happen. Donald, Russ, could you please poke > the responsible AD? + 1 > 2. draft-ietf-babel-source-specific > > This is ready for standardisation. Joel Halpern has reviewed -02 and -03, > and the -03 review was positive. Last call, please? +1 > 3. draft-ovsienko-babel-rfc7298bis > > I am in favour of adopting straight away. +1, I'll definitely review this draft but that can happen after WG adoption > 4. Babel over DTLS > > Three points of contention: > > 4.1 does DTLS go over the Babel port, or do we request a different port > for Babel over DTLS? > 4.2 is the client port equal to the server port, or do we use ephemeral > ports on the client side? > 4.3 do we leave Hello/IHU unprotected, or do we send Hello/IHU over > unicast and do something smart for link quality estimation? > > I think that Antonin and David should get in touch, and produce > a compromise draft that it not necessarily consensual (perhaps with all > reasonable choices outlined). Once we have a draft, we can ask for > adoption, and work out the details at the working group level. Sounds like a good plan to me. Antonin, do you want to take the lead on the Babel over DTLS draft? > 5. draft-ietf-babel-information-model > > Barbara's working copy (post -01) makes a lot of sense to me. I suggest > she should submit -02 with the changes we discussed, and have it reviewed > by Toke, David, and hopefully Markus. Since Toke's implementation is the > most complete, his input is likely to be the most useful (and critical). Happy to review -02. David From nobody Mon Mar 26 08:51:34 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D137C1252BA; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 08:51:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.45 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nhWRsjQcTuFO; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 08:51:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io0-x236.google.com (mail-io0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4401124B17; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 08:51:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io0-x236.google.com with SMTP id e79so23819574ioi.7; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 08:51:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZJqLU/TKTEC/HZJCyfCJ6LU/2XAYOtZKFGE+1TcKZoM=; b=ARRC59OgUfb3/AhXthzA/WInUyUTL5r2+aK3cMW3AyQnPDkrhLAgK53T4Ek3CgVu7K rd65cRfK8J3WhN29FAbpa1NnI7J4r8z/1rk/Va0cfKRfhiGgowAro8QsKej6dXa7R0gL EBP1fOBeKlUVPusEN/J+0v/10AuSALWcqYER52qArrJKuTSZI8NI9uBJBwmqPRhJpQHE KdiXA9jXQlyFERuagnKVxRPe/Y2XnCSbupEeNPLLggGfMPTH3QBoYjTOSM7f/6p6pY/4 ArBnC9PI99MOWeUx93Am1dTCu7CzzUfpzcUudpuigGpky0R4IvuZyepJruPaOtPAxBwF QcQA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZJqLU/TKTEC/HZJCyfCJ6LU/2XAYOtZKFGE+1TcKZoM=; b=PpL8mA53g1eKodCr5PS8NYI5qbeistS0sujBSyNn3oItNHwbzig0N4Mn5Y51efSNb3 zYIomnJletle2plhFEn5i+StsEHqUsfIWCOF1clinyzGoaL6jF80DlY50mXFwRsk208v GDBsBfGl8jCx9eQ7N+UlAHFPItHx6/PkuHdgDTC/d+lnL2MMLl8lccaXUITNMJz5/ghI 9/QitujDNcDtLk0YlgWgPcrxRm51nqf6pQuBdqp+4xfYqsvnLXKCoc//u+bxLJwyYOZQ Ip92rl/Jbdf2dZ2qqg+ulWdkKxDZw/+HY9VgyMKltVfbK5JmdlDfuqvhM/jbwpR3HZkg U/Mg== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7HVG6Rr5ocdjKX3gv8UDvqTczHEaEhaxzdNIlIYtuss4CTXJt0D odYdMd6tbVaWz+IsO3wdL/eFbr49PUpnW0Xm916pzQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELskzTrq/mdKHeohzAhCzpz3z3WlR852JytYaBbAENkRAPgRRorzTaDhc5G6kQAKAhxFVN3syZkK+yiKLzey+FA= X-Received: by 10.107.135.82 with SMTP id j79mr36862833iod.14.1522079488670; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 08:51:28 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.58.193 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 08:51:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87h8p5udtc.wl-jch@irif.fr> References: <87h8p5udtc.wl-jch@irif.fr> From: Donald Eastlake Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 11:51:13 -0400 Message-ID: To: Babel at IETF Cc: babel-chairs@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Draft BABEL WG minutes uploaded X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:51:34 -0000 Thanks for the correction. Updated minutes have been uploaded to the Meeting Materials page. Thanks, Donald =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 9:46 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/materials/ >> Thanks to Barbara Stark and Russ White for taking minutes. > > =C2=AB David: Most implementations do not support DTLS; not comfortable w= ith > changing DTLS to support this protocol =C2=BB > > I believe that what David meant is that most implementations do not > implement the SHOULD in Section 4.2.8 of RFC 6347. From nobody Mon Mar 26 11:16:43 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F644126DFB; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 11:16:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.749 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jjfmA8Cdcd6R; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 11:16:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io0-x229.google.com (mail-io0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F184E126CE8; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 11:16:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io0-x229.google.com with SMTP id q84so18913140iod.10; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 11:16:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=oezbbyDaZ7p9dqP2VFAFcpLBooafOWU1ia0PZGRqI10=; b=kjpg/M7p3IbUzWPCRo7JL9uO2ZYMQgTqX/dmcliUZflrWAxyM47cpIh/UzmoSozTdp rm/cJXkIBQTzuh9kCLBSJNhLQmBIKa8sNU5QHU5qK1xWACnEFYHNC4pqTpgS6Ox0Hm27 vEx66mpOlBkwbvmrG8bbuiWlNoH1VvgLkcjFAvE6PxNyslLEt5sW9Ihym7npShef3p8T UfDNOV17DDJqXs4m4c6gip5naRCmB6zdANcm2wyZ39Sqmnf1/uqWZR+cMyjln+tMEBM0 nHP2JKNl4ETcH/THnrlRl3gZu1rU3UL5Mvetrm3qwqzlt/b5Ms+xJN/Z0p4RARxYr2fP qs/Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=oezbbyDaZ7p9dqP2VFAFcpLBooafOWU1ia0PZGRqI10=; b=UK8e4jw4OGeLBMvSxnKBdUdeKyPoM7bBn567F+V5TsD6MmBfczWxpt5znWbBSrS/ZY RRcD45oW7DgVnW9XN3T5pdyXNp9l10ux0818wlvtCpj6QYAuvY8xry7yYFIDDOBD1kP0 KeMXG42kPy8YAoH4MUL6AOvKwpq0+RHp86ohEMH7KOoYUxMZDxQjcwThoeSDfRwHnnUw FErGhW54Tw1lIbJNX/TISuXYhK446vJdLmxdD49GHqWyrQVv0nEQ1lq5LuTbZB9m8B1k kvGikLOWOHrDe91xJMG3vTiukkaetD87Obvqqo1+oXkI3ffqQBUxEo7cY5zLyijzSpGY 4OeQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7Hl+Od67xzmn6IPcIlVC9jv/sp3iIKldwa8StheHtL0+yPbSXxe BhrGkb73uIFr0NjdWFZU0E08hwuD155MhkxZI6bnWUxt X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELtzdV1LG5VrkphcpySWeVCw9D90ej5Cdd4gwINKknPiPoIiMFrcHVhJ2MZ5rDzCplyIeDEtPrrpLNy/0zmRtuU= X-Received: by 10.107.135.82 with SMTP id j79mr37431332iod.14.1522088198522; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 11:16:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.58.193 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 11:16:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87k1u1uekt.wl-jch@irif.fr> References: <87k1u1uekt.wl-jch@irif.fr> From: Donald Eastlake Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 14:16:22 -0400 Message-ID: To: Babel at IETF Cc: babel-chairs@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113eb78863d078056854c6f7" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Work to do X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 18:16:41 -0000 --001a113eb78863d078056854c6f7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi, On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 9:30 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > > Hello to all, > > ... > > 1. draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis > > This has been in last call, like, forever. We're still waiting for IESG > review, let's please make it happen. Donald, Russ, could you please poke > the responsible AD? > > ... While I think there is pretty strong support for this draft in the WG, I do not believe that the Routing Directorate review comments that were sent 3 January 2018 have been resolved. In particular those related to OAM which were also discussed on the BABEL WG mailing list. I believe that if we just declare consensus in the WG and request publication of the current draft, our AD or the IESG will just bounce the document back to us for the reason given in the Routing Directorate review. (There is also an Operations Directorate review pending which I think will say the same thing when it is done.) The BABEL WG Charter says "Particular emphasis will be placed on work needed for a Proposed Standard routing protocol, such as ensuring manageability and strong security. " > 2. draft-ietf-babel-source-specific > > This is ready for standardisation. Joel Halpern has reviewed -02 and -03, > and the -03 review was positive. Last call, please? OK, I'll start the WG Last Call. I believe this draft should be normatively dependent on rfc6216bis. > 3. draft-ovsienko-babel-rfc7298bis > > Denis has produced a -00. I believe that Toke is interested both in > reviewing the draft and implementing it, and so am I. The subject of > adoption was raised at the meeting, and nobody objected. So: > > 3.1 is anyone opposed to adopting this draft? > 3.2 Denis, do you want to produce a new revision before adoption, or are > we welcome to adopt? > 3.3 Toke, do you want to review before adoption, or are we welcome to adopt? > > I am in favour of adopting straight away. "Adopting" isn't that big a deal. People can review and discuss this draft on the BABEL WG mailing list prior to adoption. So I don't see any rush. I'll consider this message by Juliusz to be the start of a 2-week adoption call. > 4. Babel over DTLS > > Three points of contention: > > 4.1 does DTLS go over the Babel port, or do we request a different port > for Babel over DTLS? As I said in London, I think it would be fairly easy to get a 2nd port assigned if we want. > 4.2 is the client port equal to the server port, or do we use ephemeral > ports on the client side? > > 4.3 do we leave Hello/IHU unprotected, or do we send Hello/IHU over > unicast and do something smart for link quality estimation? I think you need at least authentication for Hello/IHU. > I think that Antonin and David should get in touch, and produce > a compromise draft that it not necessarily consensual (perhaps with all > reasonable choices outlined). Once we have a draft, we can ask for > adoption, and work out the details at the working group level. Sounds like a reasonable course of action. > 5. draft-ietf-babel-information-model > > Barbara's working copy (post -01) makes a lot of sense to me. I suggest > she should submit -02 with the changes we discussed, and have it reviewed > by Toke, David, and hopefully Markus. Since Toke's implementation is the > most complete, his input is likely to be the most useful (and critical). Sounds good. Of course, anyone is welcome to review it. 6. Applicability document. The BABEL WG Charter says: - As the Proposed Standard version of Babel is completed, an Applicability Statement should be finalized to guide those potentially interested in deploying Babel. This Applicability Statement may include deployment advice and will be published as an RFC. Given that there clearly are applicability criterion (there are occasional posts to the mailing list that some particular application is or is not appropriate for BABEL) and that I think the effort to produce an acceptable applicability draft is pretty small, it a bad sign that draft-ietf-babel-applicability-01.txt has been expired for over 6 months. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com > My wishes for a safe return home, and kisses on both cheeks to all of you, > > -- Juliusz --001a113eb78863d078056854c6f7 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,

On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 9:30 PM, Juliusz Chrobo= czek <jch@irif.fr> wrote:
><= br>> Hello to all,
>
> ...
>
> 1. draft-ietf-bab= el-rfc6126bis
>
> This has been in last call, like, forever.=C2= =A0 We're still waiting for IESG
> review, let's please make = it happen.=C2=A0 Donald, Russ, could you please poke
> the responsibl= e AD?
>
> ...

While I think there is pretty strong suppo= rt for this draft in the WG, I do not believe that the Routing Directorate = review comments that were sent 3 January 2018 have been resolved. In partic= ular those related to OAM which were also discussed on the BABEL WG mailing= list. I believe that if we just declare consensus in the WG and request pu= blication of the current draft, our AD or the IESG will just bounce the doc= ument back to us for the reason given in the Routing Directorate review. (T= here is also an Operations Directorate review pending which I think will sa= y the same thing when it is done.) The BABEL WG Charter says "Particul= ar emphasis will be placed on work needed for a Proposed Standard routing p= rotocol, such as ensuring manageability and strong security. "

=
> 2. draft-ietf-babel-source-specific
>
> This is ready = for standardisation.=C2=A0 Joel Halpern has reviewed -02 and -03,
> a= nd the -03 review was positive.=C2=A0 Last call, please?

OK, I'l= l start the WG Last Call. I believe this draft should be normatively depend= ent on rfc6216bis.


> 3. draft-ovsienko-babel-rfc7298bis
&g= t;
> Denis has produced a -00.=C2=A0 I believe that Toke is intereste= d both in
> reviewing the draft and implementing it, and so am I.=C2= =A0 The subject of
> adoption was raised at the meeting, and nobody o= bjected.=C2=A0 So:
>
> =C2=A0 3.1 is anyone opposed to adopting= this draft?
> =C2=A0 3.2 Denis, do you want to produce a new revisio= n before adoption, or are
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 we welcome to adopt?=
> =C2=A0 3.3 Toke, do you want to review before adoption, or are we = welcome to adopt?
>
> I am in favour of adopting straight away.=

"Adopting" isn't that big a deal. People can review a= nd discuss this draft on the BABEL WG mailing list prior to adoption. So I = don't see any rush. I'll consider this message by Juliusz to be the= start of a 2-week adoption call.


> 4. Babel over DTLS
>= ;
> Three points of contention:
>
> =C2=A0 4.1 does DTLS = go over the Babel port, or do we request a different port
> =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 for Babel over DTLS?

As I said in London, I think it w= ould be fairly easy to get a 2nd port assigned if we want.

> =C2= =A0 4.2 is the client port equal to the server port, or do we use ephemeral=
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 ports on the client side?
>
> =C2= =A0 4.3 do we leave Hello/IHU unprotected, or do we send Hello/IHU over
= > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 unicast and do something smart for link quality e= stimation?

I think you need at least authentication for Hello/IHU.
> I think that Antonin and David should get in touch, and produce<= br>> a compromise draft that it not necessarily consensual (perhaps with= all
> reasonable choices outlined).=C2=A0 Once we have a draft, we c= an ask for
> adoption, and work out the details at the working group = level.

Sounds like a reasonable course of action.


> 5.= draft-ietf-babel-information-model
>
> Barbara's working c= opy (post -01) makes a lot of sense to me.=C2=A0 I suggest
> she shou= ld submit -02 with the changes we discussed, and have it reviewed
> b= y Toke, David, and hopefully Markus.=C2=A0 Since Toke's implementation = is the
> most complete, his input is likely to be the most useful (an= d critical).

Sounds good. Of course, anyone is welcome to review it.=


6. Applicability document. The BABEL WG Charter says:
- As the Proposed= Standard version of Babel is completed, an
Applicability Statement shou= ld be finalized to guide those potentially
interested in deploying Babel= . This Applicability Statement may
include deployment advice and will be= published as an RFC.
Given that there clearly are applicab= ility criterion (there are occasional posts to the mailing list that some p= articular application is or is not appropriate for BABEL) and that I think = the effort to produce an acceptable applicability draft is pretty small, it= a bad sign that draft-ietf-babel-applicability-01.txt has been expired for= over 6 months.

Thanks,
Donald
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=C2=A0Do= nald E. Eastlake 3rd =C2=A0 +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
=C2=A0155 Beaver Stre= et, Milford, MA 01757 USA
=C2=A0d3e3= e3@gmail.com

> My wishes for a safe return home, and kisses o= n both cheeks to all of you,
>
> -- Juliusz

--001a113eb78863d078056854c6f7-- From nobody Mon Mar 26 11:17:07 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11451127136; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 11:17:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.45 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2h6Ntiyo6zvw; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 11:17:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-it0-x231.google.com (mail-it0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D615D126D05; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 11:17:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-it0-x231.google.com with SMTP id p67-v6so11943292itc.2; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 11:17:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=8lCBXL3qz6Zzt0LuoWDopQcDKtu1G+dDWLhSmSkAdgQ=; b=WiuypNW7xhfVluiLm0HLt8lUHw5UKiHj4g3LdYWSc3UvPk8/zRRQsLtVf/y3TTQQEe iVIbzZ83hCVEV11mE6FCtrJ/rrQFMKoFnrT+MVwf+3aVfNOY7l1AiWUt49OQ1CZXWpsF CDKUoX61ii0LWFv4JMu5B/h+sBURBqYlJomQpT5q36RiiXdAIvUAzKFL5GvCbs7smSs+ NCO4phUDe5g6qDJ+OBTgZ1qMvT4KqonNrhGBdxNStMY7bsBdS2CgjwgZbSpCCsnJFJ0n 6v0QXlIWDTGsAS2g9MsTgwDECqYpw4OPq4I1dMzR6T+gMT00lV2RMEdu54zWilRBiUKv A2BQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=8lCBXL3qz6Zzt0LuoWDopQcDKtu1G+dDWLhSmSkAdgQ=; b=HqSgFZBFYAzXFrbC9tYu8jCMUFVx03Ip+U4N0xkXc39ur1GCFFK8GOfIkZY8SFRL/d RWayXEyafRR4YSLU2gAHBA0L2oSzEb1CMJsDWZaitFWlI0663LfSzO+LqHAgoVX5FUG5 kFvuhSn5OYxAL2DCPdawiUcJQRbz8c8oER6dlJs0yW6krvHOKzLM4PpobIvV1+RIKcMo 7ra8td68N7R0EDtqX6Qhs+tvuc9Mtv7yQoqxF4ZpB1kfyXUJCY1NrJ9VI2WXMDJw8GZa xnf+9m49IchRB96ZmBs9eb18JM/nJUm4/LQAjcZsydriZY3m744FQhaimTYLX2Q0HyYv INTA== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7EBJE8saiIhQ/ef31U5GEkp+AyIvCgqhKQycG5gOJTcu5VzJevL 5cj78uY6jaAoMp+VI9DSWYFyaAOKZRK45zkEI3mDCA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELt2DqdaUnP8Q6QuNHS4DxfOL8/181ebHvheremSfG6a05xsXF+ZmFi0YqX4fGsUXU4p6Rx/c/AHFn5qbYmJniQ= X-Received: by 2002:a24:32c4:: with SMTP id j187-v6mr23898394ita.85.1522088223962; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 11:17:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.58.193 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 11:16:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Donald Eastlake Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 14:16:48 -0400 Message-ID: To: Babel at IETF Cc: babel-chairs@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Archived-At: Subject: [babel] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-babel-source-specific (2018-03-26 to 2018-04-09) X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 18:17:06 -0000 Hi, This message starts a two-week WG Last Call on draft-ietf-babel-source-specific-03.txt. Please review the draft and indicate whether you think it is ready for advancement. Comments welcome. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com From nobody Mon Mar 26 11:17:29 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40757126DFB; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 11:17:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c63acWL6vNiD; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 11:17:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io0-x232.google.com (mail-io0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16A7C126CE8; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 11:17:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io0-x232.google.com with SMTP id r18so24379766ioa.1; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 11:17:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=IGejEkhz/bTKQD5VJEvzQNH5wK80Q4WzTwBkqtrJraY=; b=i+HjLgIeOF+WwnZmkAP0IGDzgG2lMLBqVTnIpKDh4U6UqwQBVOA6sZYlSHZENkjwtI gyjMYIEo9+sCETJe/62Hwvm9G4rFg3o9Nn3mgO6oNK55vxvjqmGZ5dtblYzoN6opFYVl 9fbdqXr9mh9audNwK4uQvzE0RCukoc56GOoJbGKwy5wfUZJxzSdXejyJMfbRRDPpFQ33 SE6Pahn0K2w7N63hw42vRGMv8nMS0gxmLlsp8Wy8S1VC4NhJviBJ5WOV0fCDuXSKOBVC KvdMONp1qyf7vs/SKbGMtnt7katajFRdHl/JqPbEXNc79ahcv6h0u201yXYvBLMthWg2 vsgw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=IGejEkhz/bTKQD5VJEvzQNH5wK80Q4WzTwBkqtrJraY=; b=QwjxK1/069ZXRvw7CmmHkKhicZDealqM32yKRq9pX2k5Oaydox9I8JwJ7nSI1MwqI7 8/i9yWf0WeLNo7MmHFdIZ2VtPlM++EOV4MVubsH/cVqwdmvrFdUwb7+a1pKhFlr5oPJ6 m0t5KUImzhu41eb2LEv2Y0D2ZMuv1Bvv4eINS/2agRdLxpAs7S1oO3xgZ7xn2rI909DV +BaNS+7bDaRMv7ZzyBF+rAjpb1dmpf30fSgehz+bnpBvT3jcy7VN+Xh+AsocelqQJrEu KBSvmzJ3bIoPnidIFhT1WdlZUHDpnC5X591T1KAw/641V4Ny/WFGaffoVi+9jB/ghDWY ep5g== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7GBSzQtDhErcgkXNWYoWO+x+zkNKf19NRaO775HH7tKMFgxurBh cU9D8OndmlxHr6/PoPZAk1eMw0WBRRYMJMt4sqdh07d7 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELsszb3jYBtVjU5hmHQVIyo98yODcrYFP/L2k1e2rhiYG78g/308q0rDoOp4UeLemVOwq5VTJJhVNm22fwzSw4A= X-Received: by 10.107.36.204 with SMTP id k195mr40272957iok.131.1522088241929; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 11:17:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.58.193 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 11:17:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Donald Eastlake Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 14:17:06 -0400 Message-ID: To: Babel at IETF Cc: babel-chairs@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114041aafa2743056854c8c5" Archived-At: Subject: [babel] Call for WG adoption of draft-ovsienko-babel-rfc7298bis (2018-03-25 to 2018-04-08) X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 18:17:27 -0000 --001a114041aafa2743056854c8c5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi, This message announces a two week adoption call for draft-ovsienko-babel-rfc7298bis-00.txt running for two week starting from the posting of https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/babel/current/msg01079.html Please comment as to whether or not you think this draft is good basis for further work by the BABEL WG. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com --001a114041aafa2743056854c8c5 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,

This message announces a two week a= doption call for draft-ovsienko-babel-rfc7298bis-00.txt running for two wee= k starting from the posting of=C2=A0https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/we= b/babel/current/msg01079.html

Please comment a= s to whether or not you think this draft is good basis for further work by = the BABEL WG.

Thanks,
Donald
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=C2=A0Donald E. Eastlake 3rd = =C2=A0 +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
=C2=A0155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757= USA
=C2=A0d3e3e3@= gmail.com
--001a114041aafa2743056854c8c5-- From nobody Mon Mar 26 11:50:25 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 606D0126D05; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 11:50:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.011 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=toke.dk Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id toduTAWvTRqE; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 11:50:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [IPv6:2001:470:dc45:1000::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 714951200F1; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 11:50:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1522090220; bh=/4Q8b3CKiLuwl2JUQNcL/1hTKDJUHEq7j7Rah0YTAis=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=Bo25gwzBZFRzFCPvhUNQu9PUIO9dQ/VqreePDi317+Ml+PGG03IbH2Uu8xvMNqi8B GiGA9lCvk5aARG/IPHsGYuyIX470ktxW7UobEptxjEVZDYna/rrlTjqqnNuNMJkzAQ IHIs6s9fC0bulqSjj8sb9cnpxQ+gPen9EoRSQDiyHj3qNKJtIRJxZo3iVrtId8FWKW TFFsM/f3ScpBuN3UlKQoDpgihv8d+3qfJx/j5xKAGT6n0q8Y7eJbu5E/EXijUuiIQt MYBTTa0g2IOa8xLM/xxySmEE8s6vYNUSmu+M6ZCcocN/PrGxOiLzQgEbecgEbYCgx0 jDZ22sF7h1VUQ== To: Donald Eastlake , Babel at IETF Cc: babel-chairs@ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 20:50:20 +0200 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <877epyfz83.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Call for WG adoption of draft-ovsienko-babel-rfc7298bis (2018-03-25 to 2018-04-08) X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 18:50:24 -0000 Donald Eastlake writes: > Hi, > > This message announces a two week adoption call for > draft-ovsienko-babel-rfc7298bis-00.txt running for two week starting from > the posting of > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/babel/current/msg01079.html > > Please comment as to whether or not you think this draft is good basis for > further work by the BABEL WG. I support adoption :) -Toke From nobody Mon Mar 26 12:00:40 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 171FD12EB13; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 12:00:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.011 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=toke.dk Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2eVC5hFVp_Kn; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 12:00:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [IPv6:2001:470:dc45:1000::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83C4B12E8A4; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 12:00:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1522090828; bh=wuZ/mJhQqCShsZu3VqW4IBHuV7YAHw5WSlr60FLPxYc=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=vlaZWUL8ZJ3i12T33bINJX/VziEyoQLIUHnvYA+MMJiJVPvU4BZg6boJIEzHJw33h Fc48aqlVc0ykKniF6lff9z3/ksXHU5q78YqG1xzQhaRpNFzMqE6rUUlP819glnm5Ey FmDXuN1lV92SmLUpD8GLeOgzfJ9DWWKp1YU+xuXasZPTyfp+gjMmSP0db9ftK3ISwf qB5yi/KOpLuR/yOFw2Q9bjrAiaFdinMGGH4+RAsa4e/gGLf7wFNfzn0PjAFIv0aoxD GhBjHzEBIcIq3FsMQ2/21gsLzGvK19GejdKred9sgO7vmx11W10w7AVSf1Gbvg+NuP CfyK1Z1WJpTsg== To: Donald Eastlake , Babel at IETF Cc: babel-chairs@ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 21:00:28 +0200 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <874ll2fyr7.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-babel-source-specific (2018-03-26 to 2018-04-09) X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 19:00:39 -0000 Donald Eastlake writes: > Hi, > > This message starts a two-week WG Last Call on > draft-ietf-babel-source-specific-03.txt. Please review the draft and > indicate whether you think it is ready for advancement. Comments > welcome. Having implemented this, I believe it is ready for publication :) -Toke From nobody Mon Mar 26 12:17:52 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02E88127337; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 12:17:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AU0lsBChaT8B; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 12:17:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6286127136; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 12:17:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/75695) with ESMTP id w2QJHlMq026254; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 21:17:47 +0200 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8453EB5C9; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 21:17:46 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id geYEd3sHp5Gy; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 21:17:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from trurl.irif.fr (unknown [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D8E9BEB578; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 21:17:45 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 21:17:45 +0200 Message-ID: <871sg6lk86.wl-jch@irif.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: Donald Eastlake Cc: Babel at IETF , babel-chairs@ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: <87k1u1uekt.wl-jch@irif.fr> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.138]); Mon, 26 Mar 2018 21:17:47 +0200 (CEST) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 5AB9475B.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5AB9475B.000 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5AB9475B.000 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Work to do X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 19:17:51 -0000 >> 1. draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis >> >> This has been in last call, like, forever. We're still waiting for IESG >> review, let's please make it happen. Donald, Russ, could you please poke >> the responsible AD? > While I think there is pretty strong support for this draft in the WG, I do > not believe that the Routing Directorate review comments that were sent 3 > January 2018 have been resolved. I am not requesting publication at the current time. I am requesting a review. The comments received in January do not constitute a review. The reviewer only discussed Sections 1 and 2 (Introduction and Conceptual Overview), and then spent the rest of her review claiming that we do not deal with management. I suspect that she may not even have read the technical parts of rfc6126bis. > In particular those related to OAM which were also discussed on the > BABEL WG mailing list. I have sent a lengthy reply about management on 7 January, and requested a full review (in a separate mail). It has been over two months now, and I have received no reply from her. > I believe that if we just declare consensus in the WG and request > publication of the current draft, I am not requesting publication at the current time. I am requesting a full review of the document, including the technical parts. It's up to the IESG, of course, but I am of the conviction that this can only be achieved by choosing a different reviewer. -- Juliusz From nobody Mon Mar 26 12:53:38 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B12F512D948 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 12:53:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.021 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.021 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ovsienko.info Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CA2DL3-IfTYW for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 12:53:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sender-of-o51.zoho.com (sender-of-o51.zoho.com [135.84.80.216]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2DB9812D877 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 12:53:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1522094001; s=zohomail; d=ovsienko.info; i=denis@ovsienko.info; h=Date:From:To:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; l=2312; bh=EFdb8J5UvAMGimCQvtfW9fFZExAjRFEnwazpO6HYYIs=; b=ApIziwsUNN7Su+ZfSD1rQmTi2pJZPrWOnnOQHQWUef4Zwc5h9A8Kzi7dSzEFeMMQ pZsKURIT4/iAhGQdSdR4270hqr1F2xYJnklU3ClHcfpGehXN/Ew4U86I+VcDf0bH283 d8hgKMDQ9opJGUMNjbjiX3iH3/Kj6/+ZJp57uF4g= Received: from mail.zoho.com by mx.zohomail.com with SMTP id 1522094001462140.5522371074868; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 12:53:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 20:53:21 +0100 From: Denis Ovsienko To: "Babel at IETF" Message-ID: <16263df4d35.c134482a130573.7360272675488949721@ovsienko.info> In-Reply-To: <87k1u1uekt.wl-jch@irif.fr> References: <87k1u1uekt.wl-jch@irif.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: Medium User-Agent: Zoho Mail X-Mailer: Zoho Mail Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Work to do (IHU TLV AE 0) X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 19:53:30 -0000 ---- On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 02:30:26 +0100 Juliusz Chroboczek wrote ---- >Hello to all, > >We've had a productive IETF, and therefore we've got a lot of work to do. >My understanding of the current situation. > > >1. draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis > >This has been in last call, like, forever. We're still waiting for IESG >review, let's please make it happen. Donald, Russ, could you please poke >the responsible AD? > >(I'm still not happy about Unicast Hellos, but I understand I'm in the >minority, so I'll shut up. Er, no, I'll keep complaining loudly, but >I won't block the process.) There is one more important thing to check before setting 6126bis in stone. The current revision of 6126bis says an IHU TLV may omit Address (AE = 0). The current revision of 7298bis needs Address meaningfully set so that the receiving node can pick the TS/PC sub-TLV from the IHU TLV and translate that to the age threshold in units of seconds. If there is no Address field but there is a TS/PC sub-TLV and 7298bis tries to use that and somebody swaps the packets between two point-to-point links, I wonder if that makes another attack possible. So far the implied destination address doesn't seem to be an obviously safe design. I currently see a few ways of getting rid of this edge case: 1. 6126bis and 7298bis coordinate to have IHU AE 1 or 3 when 7298bis is enabled 2. 6126bis simply mandates Address in IHU (AE = 1 or 3) 3. 7298bis does destination address protection too for all packets (7298 did only source, as 6126 is multicast-only). I am still considering those options, feedback is welcome. One thing I wanted to confirm is whether point-to-point links in Babel are always meant to have addresses or they can be address-less. >3. draft-ovsienko-babel-rfc7298bis > >Denis has produced a -00. I believe that Toke is interested both in >reviewing the draft and implementing it, and so am I. The subject of >adoption was raised at the meeting, and nobody objected. So: > > 3.1 is anyone opposed to adopting this draft? > 3.2 Denis, do you want to produce a new revision before adoption, or are > we welcome to adopt? OK to go into further work as it is, I have a rough plan of remaining changes, but cannot make everything in one quick go right now. -- Denis Ovsienko From nobody Mon Mar 26 13:25:07 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63F341276AF for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 13:25:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Dv3prwyIJngV for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 13:25:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F477126CC4 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 13:25:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:1]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/75695) with ESMTP id w2QKP2wq013055 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:25:02 +0200 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay2/75695) with ESMTP id w2QKP462026050; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:25:04 +0200 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40EDCEB273; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:25:02 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id VxFqKGSTAiUN; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:25:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from trurl.irif.fr (unknown [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 466E9EB276; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:25:01 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:25:01 +0200 Message-ID: <87r2o6k2jm.wl-jch@irif.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: Denis Ovsienko Cc: "Babel at IETF" In-Reply-To: <16263df4d35.c134482a130573.7360272675488949721@ovsienko.info> References: <87k1u1uekt.wl-jch@irif.fr> <16263df4d35.c134482a130573.7360272675488949721@ovsienko.info> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]); Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:25:02 +0200 (CEST) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.141]); Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:25:04 +0200 (CEST) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 5AB9571E.002 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-Miltered: at potemkin with ID 5AB95720.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5AB9571E.002 from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/null/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5AB95720.000 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5AB9571E.002 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5AB95720.000 on potemkin.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Work to do (IHU TLV AE 0) X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 20:25:05 -0000 > There is one more important thing to check before setting 6126bis in > stone. The current revision of 6126bis says an IHU TLV may omit Address > (AE = 0). The current revision of 7298bis needs Address meaningfully set > so that the receiving node can pick the TS/PC sub-TLV from the IHU TLV > and translate that to the age threshold in units of seconds. I need to think that over. > 1. 6126bis and 7298bis coordinate to have IHU AE 1 or 3 when 7298bis is > enabled > 2. 6126bis simply mandates Address in IHU (AE = 1 or 3) I'm fine with either of these. > 3. 7298bis does destination address protection too for all packets (7298 > did only source, as 6126 is multicast-only). Please clarify. 6126 already allows unicast operation, except for Hello TLVs (Section 3.1 of RFC 6126). > I am still considering those options, feedback is welcome. One thing > I wanted to confirm is whether point-to-point links in Babel are always > meant to have addresses or they can be address-less. You need an adress to put in the source field of the IP packet. For IPv6, this SHOULD be a link-local address. For IPv4, this could be an address assigned to a different interface of the same node, but carrying Babel over IPv4 is NOT RECOMMENDED. -- Juliusz From nobody Mon Mar 26 13:34:24 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 139CF126D74 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 13:34:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.011 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=toke.dk Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6OcZ6AHeTiYQ for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 13:34:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [IPv6:2001:470:dc45:1000::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C350126CC4 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 13:34:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1522096459; bh=fOuYYc1EYJFBliSnQoeWSbjbVI7/xhvWZFI7BG2P6h0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=WxwDndYWoNwRIV3tK9R+3/1hk7WlawLQCVQ6jQkXD/tWTM3woF/IC+GITGQrt+suS qNJhSDnniuLvZPElQ9K6vbEMQ4B2aN1GM8AI93pPn6+2RSCHiEO9bK8HnjskrrS4fQ 3OvKT0agr3tFbDS1BfaXy4m+fncIcl219mWWpDJjvB/AKYcH9L8IaVXo6oYwQN80gs BBuExctdwFpgQoAUZ7t9gWoBPMPvr1i+lNAmt18hbIZaVyVheToQdal6RQQxVFeQln p+aJmCUbv4y1e+OPlNBZPwnKVKL3yU/zQ9hauKypDDEI8BuRZj2GrkiuKtKeYHCWvA dWYFtx4WDspVg== To: Juliusz Chroboczek , Denis Ovsienko Cc: Babel at IETF In-Reply-To: <87r2o6k2jm.wl-jch@irif.fr> References: <87k1u1uekt.wl-jch@irif.fr> <16263df4d35.c134482a130573.7360272675488949721@ovsienko.info> <87r2o6k2jm.wl-jch@irif.fr> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:34:19 +0200 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <87tvt2efuc.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Work to do (IHU TLV AE 0) X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 20:34:23 -0000 Juliusz Chroboczek writes: > For IPv4, this could be an address assigned to a different interface > of the same node, but carrying Babel over IPv4 is NOT RECOMMENDED. Seeing as this is the case, and that no implementations run on IPv4, the IPv4 support is entirely theoretical. So I wonder whether it wouldn't make more sense to drop it entirely from the spec? -Toke From nobody Mon Mar 26 13:37:21 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietf.org Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A0C4126CC4; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 13:37:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: IETF Secretariat To: , , X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.76.1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <152209663955.15245.18170211040776734380.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 13:37:19 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [babel] The BABEL WG has placed draft-ovsienko-babel-rfc7298bis in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued" X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 20:37:20 -0000 The BABEL WG has placed draft-ovsienko-babel-rfc7298bis in state Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Donald Eastlake) The document is available at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ovsienko-babel-rfc7298bis/ From nobody Mon Mar 26 13:54:38 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9FF11242F5; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 13:54:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.45 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RzxjRYClRFVF; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 13:54:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io0-x231.google.com (mail-io0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FA63124234; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 13:54:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io0-x231.google.com with SMTP id r18so24912579ioa.1; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 13:54:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=DO+jfMaAsRRDeCFIDv2W90zkdhMVq7iE1FuapIEc7xU=; b=cwmyP0dktCBdXwZg4RXYcqSekHJhZxKGcEJTjpegOhxBIVblq4NHzIcYBg6/ScxnyI DYlR1FW2eSlgHJ6LPXmbCMT/FZft8zJHEwIWsFJGrn2O+9Z+h8mFm/KV0GQRhwEspBu+ Y7R/6A9L5MQpjz8kyoBdNJ08ARvJ9zMqyoSfzFMa3rkIIg0rRmxsSoSFAp5d56ozORJX iK0Z8xPZndWvkj0BaKsGGmgZCJ0WkQ9t5lYv/PfD7QNwj+Lfg49R38oitCpkd9aKXE/W Trie78j2u+YHkR7CxddYvEKHA9u/zWzBClAYA9J4VHC27f9n7DJT827lJkatchkTT8Vd mZ5g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=DO+jfMaAsRRDeCFIDv2W90zkdhMVq7iE1FuapIEc7xU=; b=p45exoiFLGIS4CFoMMMwT3OpdzH2o3i/imQN1+tR+C4wuO5byQP+D0EIJ5+ayWSOB7 0mayPUjXydIMRaomUX3GF4Ks5DbnrVGnhXEW4s3YEGvB+tbS/9IyH0DDXO+iI3fmwNdG SutGUHkxXrW4xLGuMwIwJ4bXScyw2rdPJ6Ivwne0v27mvOopb9prYLNHKTnuUQ0pTUxr cVZBuhR0Gky0Kf1SvJHT26TCx1u2b9E9gRBxmJDD8kJ3Sjxw/Rc/cqYioM5d484HSh+n 1ZnwiNd+F8MKbWP4/Pz+u0lRQkCK0jeD6AoZJwudtK0wA+4/Exoxs08OHkRJzxOCit3v aNug== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7H8kvzuF9GE3fz8DyIxl8iBW0MjHnj74iDCvPftPn+d1Dtodtvn GWACjceIbecR9Vui0jm8TzytEBUoG57hmOJnY40= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELuKNglmx/zrt742AaQtjGlXeje01HmNrq9a5ujjkY7hpNrXkEfGEdGwJY+KZzf5Axatl2VvzjywEWReRFDGrGU= X-Received: by 10.107.3.71 with SMTP id 68mr44085058iod.66.1522097674197; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 13:54:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.58.193 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 13:54:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <871sg6lk86.wl-jch@irif.fr> References: <87k1u1uekt.wl-jch@irif.fr> <871sg6lk86.wl-jch@irif.fr> From: Donald Eastlake Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 16:54:18 -0400 Message-ID: To: Juliusz Chroboczek Cc: Babel at IETF , babel-chairs@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Work to do X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 20:54:37 -0000 Hi Juliusz, On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 3:17 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > > >> 1. draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis > >> > >> This has been in last call, like, forever. We're still waiting for IESG > >> review, let's please make it happen. Donald, Russ, could you please poke > >> the responsible AD? > > > While I think there is pretty strong support for this draft in the WG, I do > > not believe that the Routing Directorate review comments that were sent 3 > > January 2018 have been resolved. > > I am not requesting publication at the current time. I am requesting a review. Sorry for misunderstanding you. The term "IESG Review" refers to the ballot process and telechat in the IESG which occurs after AD review and after publication request. > The comments received in January do not constitute a review. The reviewer > only discussed Sections 1 and 2 (Introduction and Conceptual Overview), > and then spent the rest of her review claiming that we do not deal with > management. I suspect that she may not even have read the technical parts > of rfc6126bis. I'll go back and re-read the conversation from January. > > In particular those related to OAM which were also discussed on the > > BABEL WG mailing list. > > I have sent a lengthy reply about management on 7 January, and requested > a full review (in a separate mail). It has been over two months now, and > I have received no reply from her. That is certainly a legitimate complaint. I'll see what I can do. > > I believe that if we just declare consensus in the WG and request > > publication of the current draft, > > I am not requesting publication at the current time. I am requesting > a full review of the document, including the technical parts. It's up to > the IESG, of course, but I am of the conviction that this can only be > achieved by choosing a different reviewer. Actually, it isn't up to the IESG. The document is still inside the BABEL WG. If appropriate, we can certainly request assistance from our AD. But, until WG consensus is declared and publication is requested, the IESG normally doesn't have involvement with individual WG drafts. Getting a full review with fresh eyes is an excellent path to take. As I say, I'll see what I can do. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com > -- Juliusz From nobody Mon Mar 26 14:17:00 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAADC124234 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 14:16:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.021 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.021 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ovsienko.info Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Rtu_2T2KftQL for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 14:16:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sender-of-o51.zoho.com (sender-of-o51.zoho.com [135.84.80.216]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FA4F126CB6 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 14:16:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1522099010; s=zohomail; d=ovsienko.info; i=denis@ovsienko.info; h=Date:From:To:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; l=2025; bh=PzBM9XPndZTZurZLyIUjwoZyWsCTZLPHciSaffr1SzM=; b=k8H3/2fc6VXCIO4F96IV/IFhojD7WCnv71AifFiahE3HqGetIJJmll6SB6vW0GP9 2eso2OPyH9pdF0pYjM25AmmRiNZbuufbWtlHxoa2a4unwxW1FoOCmUBDEiOf7W+QMAX viyAm1xGcJZvi0HzvWzCSk9RsKx9Ieh+pOFeuxo8= Received: from mail.zoho.com by mx.zohomail.com with SMTP id 1522099010864376.536998300641; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 14:16:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:16:50 +0100 From: Denis Ovsienko To: "Babel at IETF" Message-ID: <162642bbd2f.1266904f2130878.513114391174006256@ovsienko.info> In-Reply-To: <87r2o6k2jm.wl-jch@irif.fr> References: <87k1u1uekt.wl-jch@irif.fr> <16263df4d35.c134482a130573.7360272675488949721@ovsienko.info> <87r2o6k2jm.wl-jch@irif.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: Medium User-Agent: Zoho Mail X-Mailer: Zoho Mail Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Work to do (IHU TLV AE 0) X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 21:16:59 -0000 ---- On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 21:25:01 +0100 Juliusz Chroboczek wrote ---- >> There is one more important thing to check before setting 6126bis in >> stone. The current revision of 6126bis says an IHU TLV may omit Address >> (AE = 0). The current revision of 7298bis needs Address meaningfully set >> so that the receiving node can pick the TS/PC sub-TLV from the IHU TLV >> and translate that to the age threshold in units of seconds. > >I need to think that over. > >> 1. 6126bis and 7298bis coordinate to have IHU AE 1 or 3 when 7298bis is >> enabled >> 2. 6126bis simply mandates Address in IHU (AE = 1 or 3) > >I'm fine with either of these. Alright. Then 2 would be straightforward if the problem does not require 3 (see below). >> 3. 7298bis does destination address protection too for all packets (7298 >> did only source, as 6126 is multicast-only). > >Please clarify. 6126 already allows unicast operation, except for Hello >TLVs (Section 3.1 of RFC 6126). I am sorry, a more correct wording would be: the destination address was not meaningful in 6126 (I remember discussing this with you at some point). Do the new unicast provisions in 6126bis make the destination address meaningful? I.e. can a man in the middle change it and cause any damage beyond ignored Babel packets? The destination address can be covered by the integrity check too with no additional expense of bytes in the protocol encoding. >> I am still considering those options, feedback is welcome. One thing >> I wanted to confirm is whether point-to-point links in Babel are always >> meant to have addresses or they can be address-less. > >You need an adress to put in the source field of the IP packet. For IPv6, >this SHOULD be a link-local address. For IPv4, this could be an address >assigned to a different interface of the same node, but carrying Babel >over IPv4 is NOT RECOMMENDED. "Unnumbered interface" is the correct term from OSPF. It is out of scope in Babel, right? -- Denis Ovsienko From nobody Mon Mar 26 14:20:19 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF2FA1242F5; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 14:20:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.45 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b8Zz9sfVswRa; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 14:20:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-it0-x22c.google.com (mail-it0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D8E4124234; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 14:20:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-it0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id k135-v6so12523277ite.2; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 14:20:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=4lN7uxIBoQbET7/NPlwLA0NwRkGoEOvxeTwmOKs254E=; b=BuNbEdtVxc5uVDWZlHYYO3cmF74l+8jeOvODnBPSDcR1Uec3WveiBXmjKFz8iWVgsl 4+Ny4gcnVSxjoukjlE6wetsdV93K+opw/CMsr0ku/VEEajHt9fmPY2K1ZuoUd12vxBow MZEbmWp7Hbv9aoqbEkXukABIFZpdFDGl147Z7qsj3iMUkDYIh6v/xZad9sP590W9Otjs ETqaiE+VEa0OO+F8XWdrWQ4dsvlAunL1tW0D3B3IC9dr/agVj0HZTnjniyWMiRGh/ZmP bVovRdYbx0fj/rqN8xRtEWnJabpCbRqEs7iyRVgKfh5GvohmdYAlNpw7C9K6L4aRMZme LR0g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=4lN7uxIBoQbET7/NPlwLA0NwRkGoEOvxeTwmOKs254E=; b=imDgECuJyTud0mfxKs5ufPfK+dbC9tNcXDLWxdf1lQJLOlHv+v0xriII3+6dpc7JUI DL/L+By8TRvJ8aH7//ZY3vZeW/DgQXCx4x03Jj9ZhkP3H9f3OmKmtc6KZ0MK5f1+nXyK 7v2R9NqS3acTyuzcS/l+c4X7pZSRHZhXFBO+4S0IVKjD7Tx5BAVcP8d/VrSuxXZuG+p6 LcUNVzBttTBG+W7KIQd1uHcWEVkM6+Tx8y04lVAlQDzc+CjIyhPpHYlX5NDzxOptaDX4 7qUDAm8F+TM/ch8R3dUpCwDa1UBTtfmCxTjR1yAEG9XfcZmFJRj/fvZrxnV7O4m6WH0F lsvA== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7HXZog3WxJRvnUmyD5AUotfXUUBzkDAAKF16nKvkS1J+Xfu2o5H kBoVDHb5ONUE5s9cQWVZqs96rBSNSQp5X3wscjM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4/znAlF9DDGylui6F7RmvbXW/GCNAQSA0m9rzM69RX25E2fop1DvY5icZmF5sKkJwaWjEp5w4f9H3PvUK4y90k= X-Received: by 2002:a24:df04:: with SMTP id r4-v6mr2339094itg.105.1522099215480; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 14:20:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.58.193 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 14:19:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <87k1u1uekt.wl-jch@irif.fr> <871sg6lk86.wl-jch@irif.fr> From: Donald Eastlake Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 17:19:59 -0400 Message-ID: To: Juliusz Chroboczek Cc: Babel at IETF , babel-chairs@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Work to do X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 21:20:18 -0000 Hi Juliusz, On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 4:54 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote: > Hi Juliusz, > > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 3:17 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: >> >> ... I am requesting >> a full review of the document, including the technical parts. It's up to >> the IESG, of course, but I am of the conviction that this can only be >> achieved by choosing a different reviewer. > > Actually, it isn't up to the IESG. The document is still inside the > BABEL WG. If appropriate, we can certainly request assistance from our > AD. But, until WG consensus is declared and publication is requested, > the IESG normally doesn't have involvement with individual WG drafts. > > Getting a full review with fresh eyes is an excellent path to take. As > I say, I'll see what I can do. Poking around a bit, it turn out that Alia Atlas, 5 days ago on her last day as BABEL WG AD, requested a new Routing Directorate review and requested an Operations Directorate review. I'll ping the assigned reviewers and see if I can get the reviews done earlier rather than later. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com > ... > >> -- Juliusz From nobody Mon Mar 26 14:47:32 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1499F12DA12 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 14:47:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.011 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=toke.dk Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d_hU4VynYwmN for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 14:47:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [52.28.52.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 369DA12D810 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 14:47:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1522100827; bh=A9+dBNFEffsxV9Drhsy5IMhFIa3TPLOTPxJ3OBBkWj8=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=VQRaKhrmtsuAiCG0WiMpSU3fCM7y4FCwXm/3LbFpLVnh+OT6XJm1w9rnwJu+A4nSY nYm3Ks0IRnWLAox9MvCz51AnMakyvvDefDnzCd46dlt/Tzt/88x2x3rBswJp6D+RwL /A2flirp3/L4OnWPDZKM0lFYN3GqQ9LQGa7Jw88AobZ9AbEqOlcPmZmXC9pb6CI/Hb PGma5FanHs5SYWqeh5/Mv3bNK3whJxMLrKKx6JlQNWQ6pIDTiQLd0Jl0Gm3LUEIGA3 GkLsT1qa0yuwqj2jxYN/clwQwQOvKMKlwpoLudH3DsStzSr1cQADLNcDrKwzrucPMk PRHOiE1iONvSQ== To: Denis Ovsienko , Babel at IETF In-Reply-To: <162642bbd2f.1266904f2130878.513114391174006256@ovsienko.info> References: <87k1u1uekt.wl-jch@irif.fr> <16263df4d35.c134482a130573.7360272675488949721@ovsienko.info> <87r2o6k2jm.wl-jch@irif.fr> <162642bbd2f.1266904f2130878.513114391174006256@ovsienko.info> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 23:47:06 +0200 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <87po3qech1.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Work to do (IHU TLV AE 0) X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 21:47:16 -0000 Denis Ovsienko writes: > ---- On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 21:25:01 +0100 Juliusz Chroboczek wrote ---- >>> There is one more important thing to check before setting 6126bis in >>> stone. The current revision of 6126bis says an IHU TLV may omit Address >>> (AE = 0). The current revision of 7298bis needs Address meaningfully set >>> so that the receiving node can pick the TS/PC sub-TLV from the IHU TLV >>> and translate that to the age threshold in units of seconds. >> >>I need to think that over. >> >>> 1. 6126bis and 7298bis coordinate to have IHU AE 1 or 3 when 7298bis is >>> enabled >>> 2. 6126bis simply mandates Address in IHU (AE = 1 or 3) >> >>I'm fine with either of these. > > Alright. Then 2 would be straightforward if the problem does not require 3 (see below). > >>> 3. 7298bis does destination address protection too for all packets (7298 >>> did only source, as 6126 is multicast-only). >> >>Please clarify. 6126 already allows unicast operation, except for Hello >>TLVs (Section 3.1 of RFC 6126). > > I am sorry, a more correct wording would be: the destination address > was not meaningful in 6126 (I remember discussing this with you at > some point). Do the new unicast provisions in 6126bis make the > destination address meaningful? I.e. can a man in the middle change it > and cause any damage beyond ignored Babel packets? The packet destination address is not checked on the receiver, regardless of whether the packet was sent over unicast or multicast. At least, that's the case with Bird and (I think) babeld. -Toke From nobody Mon Mar 26 22:33:53 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EC5A1270AC; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:33:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5ryoYRc2n1B1; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:33:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F7DE1200A0; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:33:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0049297.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049297.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id w2R5P06V046521; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:33:48 -0400 Received: from alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp6.sbc.com [144.160.229.23]) by m0049297.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2gybw8b1xg-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:33:48 -0400 Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w2R5XlvJ018814; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:33:47 -0400 Received: from zlp30488.vci.att.com (zlp30488.vci.att.com [135.47.91.93]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w2R5XTbb018548; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:33:29 -0400 Received: from zlp30488.vci.att.com (zlp30488.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp30488.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id D405B40002C2; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 05:33:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from GAALPA1MSGHUBAF.ITServices.sbc.com (unknown [130.8.218.155]) by zlp30488.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTPS id C309B400069B; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 05:33:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.5.71]) by GAALPA1MSGHUBAF.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.8.218.155]) with mapi id 14.03.0361.001; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:33:29 -0400 From: "STARK, BARBARA H" To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Toke_H=F8iland-J=F8rgensen?= , "Donald Eastlake" , Babel at IETF CC: "babel-chairs@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [babel] Call for WG adoption of draft-ovsienko-babel-rfc7298bis (2018-03-25 to 2018-04-08) Thread-Index: AQHTxS65fFUpMz3d5kSdQIHRo4FEjKPjH0QAgABwXDA= Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 05:33:28 +0000 Message-ID: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DD5785F@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> References: <877epyfz83.fsf@toke.dk> In-Reply-To: <877epyfz83.fsf@toke.dk> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [130.10.190.135] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2018-03-27_02:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=824 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1803270054 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Call for WG adoption of draft-ovsienko-babel-rfc7298bis (2018-03-25 to 2018-04-08) X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 05:33:51 -0000 > > This message announces a two week adoption call for > > draft-ovsienko-babel-rfc7298bis-00.txt running for two week starting > > from the posting of > > > > Please comment as to whether or not you think this draft is good basis > > for further work by the BABEL WG. >=20 > I support adoption :) I support adoption, too. Barbara From nobody Tue Mar 27 07:17:50 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D609812DA25; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 07:17:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QVcxRTgLAJHY; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 07:17:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DA1412DA24; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 07:17:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/75695) with ESMTP id w2REHiXM019880; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 16:17:44 +0200 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADC80EB276; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 16:17:43 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id qFT9bX7yY7kQ; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 16:17:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from lanthane.irif.fr (unknown [172.23.36.89]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DFD74EB275; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 16:17:41 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 16:17:41 +0200 Message-ID: <87fu4lsiuy.wl-jch@irif.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: Donald Eastlake Cc: Babel at IETF , babel-chairs@ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: <87k1u1uekt.wl-jch@irif.fr> <871sg6lk86.wl-jch@irif.fr> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.138]); Tue, 27 Mar 2018 16:17:44 +0200 (CEST) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 5ABA5288.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5ABA5288.000 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5ABA5288.000 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Work to do X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 14:17:48 -0000 > Sorry for misunderstanding you. The term "IESG Review" refers to the > ballot process and telechat in the IESG which occurs after AD review > and after publication request. My bad. Sorry for getting this wrong. > Getting a full review with fresh eyes is an excellent path to take. As > I say, I'll see what I can do. Thanks. -- Juliusz From nobody Wed Mar 28 03:08:54 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 688B1126D73 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 03:08:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.021 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.021 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ovsienko.info Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CKZY_b0g-pJd for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 03:08:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sender-of-o51.zoho.com (sender-of-o51.zoho.com [135.84.80.216]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 13E011200C5 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 03:08:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1522231726; s=zohomail; d=ovsienko.info; i=denis@ovsienko.info; h=Date:From:To:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; l=1220; bh=JS/AFTCdRLTGFwiPtCKMtOYI8JWfU9rClwxne714UzA=; b=VsUB1T4Lx96dPTtPyF7yqMBGr5ssbCr8I89ac8kBw7mRPFWjSB/QRxN4Iv6jansG W3Ly5v0PjbRX1BiKyBOyr0Kuu/mOi3yRDMxg39yC+L/Gj23bDk6d1EBwk+aCmBdF9Nv QRRiBJoG5P9t6oeAF6oVuHh3CBOjbGXv93vaZM4s= Received: from mail.zoho.com by mx.zohomail.com with SMTP id 1522231726599119.43316158029666; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 03:08:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 11:08:46 +0100 From: Denis Ovsienko To: "Babel at IETF" Message-ID: <1626c14d206.11a73a01135842.5517559371574417385@ovsienko.info> In-Reply-To: <87po3qech1.fsf@toke.dk> References: <87k1u1uekt.wl-jch@irif.fr> <16263df4d35.c134482a130573.7360272675488949721@ovsienko.info> <87r2o6k2jm.wl-jch@irif.fr> <162642bbd2f.1266904f2130878.513114391174006256@ovsienko.info> <87po3qech1.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: Medium User-Agent: Zoho Mail X-Mailer: Zoho Mail Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Work to do (IHU TLV AE 0) X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 10:08:52 -0000 >>>> 3. 7298bis does destination address protection too for all packets (7298 >>>> did only source, as 6126 is multicast-only). >>> >>>Please clarify. 6126 already allows unicast operation, except for Hello >>>TLVs (Section 3.1 of RFC 6126). >> >> I am sorry, a more correct wording would be: the destination address >> was not meaningful in 6126 (I remember discussing this with you at >> some point). Do the new unicast provisions in 6126bis make the >> destination address meaningful? I.e. can a man in the middle change it >> and cause any damage beyond ignored Babel packets? > >The packet destination address is not checked on the receiver, >regardless of whether the packet was sent over unicast or multicast. At >least, that's the case with Bird and (I think) babeld. The host IP stack discards a packet if the destination isn't a local address or a joined multicast group. Now if someone intercepts or copies a Babel packet from A to B and rewrites the destination with C and feeds the new packet towards C, can anything go wrong? This may be the same as to ask if any arbitrary unicast Babel packet may be sent over multicast. Sorry, I am still thinking about it. -- Denis Ovsienko From nobody Wed Mar 28 03:20:47 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80C931204DA for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 03:20:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.011 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=toke.dk Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rutBu8yUjyZ2 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 03:20:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [IPv6:2001:470:dc45:1000::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09CE31200C5 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 03:20:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1522232441; bh=bGHveio8MpxFODKyxUDkMBAiGOc/T/9Y8Lrl5yqIYzo=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=SM5+DOa9DqojSUyV6dZ5YUGMfa4HHwOxq2qZ0QkMZLkTSfqdjEclhAqxzLFjO6Inb OYmG24293GSzP4xsvL6LhlnzmPPZBvXpoEdrR/6jRnJpaYCw8B4ahpDMMvaY7k2/ra KIWp9/qoFozwZ5HAHBeAX5IHahdRtwgiTDXvQJ7XzchSdjn/Q0qxiHk4p8OiehxOoY YCnKWPIvOeOUOV7nc2rPDKfpR0A4dV+/Z4lOFjMbGpOcszP3XnSdT7o0fnwD8s3R/Q S9MUszb18VtBkX2wNE9wcaTn5vgrLKcnFD58tnuBc4GA5L7I1X/XKijO+e4ZWyL5Rh bax2o5p4knAsQ== To: Denis Ovsienko , Babel at IETF In-Reply-To: <1626c14d206.11a73a01135842.5517559371574417385@ovsienko.info> References: <87k1u1uekt.wl-jch@irif.fr> <16263df4d35.c134482a130573.7360272675488949721@ovsienko.info> <87r2o6k2jm.wl-jch@irif.fr> <162642bbd2f.1266904f2130878.513114391174006256@ovsienko.info> <87po3qech1.fsf@toke.dk> <1626c14d206.11a73a01135842.5517559371574417385@ovsienko.info> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 12:20:41 +0200 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <871sg4jybq.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Work to do (IHU TLV AE 0) X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 10:20:45 -0000 Denis Ovsienko writes: >>>>> 3. 7298bis does destination address protection too for all packets (7298 >>>>> did only source, as 6126 is multicast-only). >>>> >>>>Please clarify. 6126 already allows unicast operation, except for Hello >>>>TLVs (Section 3.1 of RFC 6126). >>> >>> I am sorry, a more correct wording would be: the destination address >>> was not meaningful in 6126 (I remember discussing this with you at >>> some point). Do the new unicast provisions in 6126bis make the >>> destination address meaningful? I.e. can a man in the middle change it >>> and cause any damage beyond ignored Babel packets? >> >>The packet destination address is not checked on the receiver, >>regardless of whether the packet was sent over unicast or multicast. At >>least, that's the case with Bird and (I think) babeld. > > The host IP stack discards a packet if the destination isn't a local > address or a joined multicast group. Now if someone intercepts or > copies a Babel packet from A to B and rewrites the destination with C > and feeds the new packet towards C, can anything go wrong? This may be > the same as to ask if any arbitrary unicast Babel packet may be sent > over multicast. Yeah, don't see why that is not equivalent to the multicast case as you say. In principle there is nothing preventing anyone from the link of unicasting a packet to anyone at the link-layer with a multicast destination address (to get it delivered to the Babel socket), is there? -Toke From nobody Wed Mar 28 05:44:18 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22D801242F7 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 05:44:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1WxrzK4poJKN for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 05:44:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5064126C22 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 05:44:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/75695) with ESMTP id w2SCiD5K002137; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 14:44:13 +0200 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 121F2EB275; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 14:44:13 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id o-Pga4ii_NfB; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 14:44:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from trurl.irif.fr (unknown [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 31EACEB273; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 14:44:11 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 14:44:11 +0200 Message-ID: <87h8p01ias.wl-jch@irif.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: Toke =?ISO-8859-1?Q?H=F8iland-J=F8rgensen?= Cc: Denis Ovsienko , Babel at IETF In-Reply-To: <871sg4jybq.fsf@toke.dk> References: <87k1u1uekt.wl-jch@irif.fr> <16263df4d35.c134482a130573.7360272675488949721@ovsienko.info> <87r2o6k2jm.wl-jch@irif.fr> <162642bbd2f.1266904f2130878.513114391174006256@ovsienko.info> <87po3qech1.fsf@toke.dk> <1626c14d206.11a73a01135842.5517559371574417385@ovsienko.info> <871sg4jybq.fsf@toke.dk> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.138]); Wed, 28 Mar 2018 14:44:13 +0200 (CEST) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 5ABB8E1D.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5ABB8E1D.000 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5ABB8E1D.000 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Work to do (IHU TLV AE 0) X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 12:44:17 -0000 > Yeah, don't see why that is not equivalent to the multicast case as you say. Alice sends Bob a unicast Hello with seqno 42, properly authentified. Chloe captures the Hello, and resends it to Damian. Damian accepts it as a properly authentified unicast Hello from Alice to Damian. The flaw here is a combination of two facts, neither of which is harmful in itself: - a unicast Hello doesn't carry its destination in the body; - the HMAC algorithm doesn't protect the destination address. There are other TLVs that have the same property -- IHU with AE=0, AckReqs and Acks. Additionally, it is not known what future extensions will do. Hence, I suggest that HMAC should be protecting the destination address. I'll send a detailed mail with all of my issues with the current draft after I speak with the students on Friday. -- Juliusz From nobody Wed Mar 28 05:49:33 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B8BE12702E for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 05:49:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.011 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=toke.dk Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M_sA_mtO1zpX for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 05:49:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [IPv6:2001:470:dc45:1000::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E2D0126FDC for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 05:49:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1522241368; bh=IGi6jhyKuAKPD6IPLu67lXt9H+tKuz3/C/DgI9TpBts=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=HHlh84u1lfg071HXsotIdKbUBw9iHGTnv5iFbOlAFeLdtOa02UTEh8TyZ9b1VQnbB 3QtANhSKILrFbprN0bsK93wI/TLbLIMPWpBJrosMWJD4QnJ173QuY2LQ6FsNT0kMch yuZM9Ng7AEwIBGtzNPZYVg+17b29xwcRPa2+/ucafV1GVuuPpDhNriyjgzJUT3F2u0 quaf40jCeOfbFGLr3wSKt9AxJr6cMCBU9wU1gM8lvbPRSH38JYakVVZLoQyurA3QoK uC1XfrdxIQFd+AvpWhBypVN4pDDZDGA09lp8mUSNeI30ooya5SMjm/9jgHQE9kxEG4 d08ThumSnlcSg== To: Juliusz Chroboczek Cc: Denis Ovsienko , Babel at IETF In-Reply-To: <87h8p01ias.wl-jch@irif.fr> References: <87k1u1uekt.wl-jch@irif.fr> <16263df4d35.c134482a130573.7360272675488949721@ovsienko.info> <87r2o6k2jm.wl-jch@irif.fr> <162642bbd2f.1266904f2130878.513114391174006256@ovsienko.info> <87po3qech1.fsf@toke.dk> <1626c14d206.11a73a01135842.5517559371574417385@ovsienko.info> <871sg4jybq.fsf@toke.dk> <87h8p01ias.wl-jch@irif.fr> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 14:49:27 +0200 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <87bmf8icvc.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Work to do (IHU TLV AE 0) X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 12:49:31 -0000 Juliusz Chroboczek writes: >> Yeah, don't see why that is not equivalent to the multicast case as you say. > > Alice sends Bob a unicast Hello with seqno 42, properly authentified. > Chloe captures the Hello, and resends it to Damian. > Damian accepts it as a properly authentified unicast Hello from Alice to Damian. > > The flaw here is a combination of two facts, neither of which is harmful > in itself: > > - a unicast Hello doesn't carry its destination in the body; > - the HMAC algorithm doesn't protect the destination address. > > There are other TLVs that have the same property -- IHU with AE=0, AckReqs > and Acks. Additionally, it is not known what future extensions will do. > Hence, I suggest that HMAC should be protecting the destination > address. But nothing about the unicast spec requires that the packet actually be sent with a unicast destination address. That presumably needs to be fixed, then? -Toke From nobody Wed Mar 28 06:08:10 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93B12126D85 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:08:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SmvfjDEBnj9L for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:08:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE5211242F7 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:08:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:1]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/75695) with ESMTP id w2SD86t4018600 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 28 Mar 2018 15:08:06 +0200 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay2/75695) with ESMTP id w2SD87ut020623; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 15:08:07 +0200 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B4E3EB35E; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 15:08:06 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id 8V2q861_8TLY; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 15:08:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from trurl.irif.fr (unknown [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2906CEB332; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 15:08:05 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 15:08:04 +0200 Message-ID: <87efk41h6z.wl-jch@irif.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: Toke =?ISO-8859-1?Q?H=F8iland-J=F8rgensen?= Cc: Denis Ovsienko , Babel at IETF In-Reply-To: <87bmf8icvc.fsf@toke.dk> References: <87k1u1uekt.wl-jch@irif.fr> <16263df4d35.c134482a130573.7360272675488949721@ovsienko.info> <87r2o6k2jm.wl-jch@irif.fr> <162642bbd2f.1266904f2130878.513114391174006256@ovsienko.info> <87po3qech1.fsf@toke.dk> <1626c14d206.11a73a01135842.5517559371574417385@ovsienko.info> <871sg4jybq.fsf@toke.dk> <87h8p01ias.wl-jch@irif.fr> <87bmf8icvc.fsf@toke.dk> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]); Wed, 28 Mar 2018 15:08:06 +0200 (CEST) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.141]); Wed, 28 Mar 2018 15:08:07 +0200 (CEST) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 5ABB93B6.002 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-Miltered: at potemkin with ID 5ABB93B7.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5ABB93B6.002 from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/null/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5ABB93B7.001 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5ABB93B6.002 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5ABB93B7.001 on potemkin.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Work to do (IHU TLV AE 0) X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 13:08:10 -0000 > But nothing about the unicast spec requires that the packet actually be > sent with a unicast destination address. That presumably needs to be > fixed, then? Section 3.4.1 of 6126bis: There are two kinds of Hellos: Multicast Hellos, which use a per- interface Hello counter, and Unicast Hellos, which use a per- neighbour counter. A Multicast Hello with a given seqno MUST be sent to all neighbours on a given interface, either by sending it to a multicast address or by sending it to one unicast address per neighbour (hence, the term "Multicast Hello" is a slight misnomer). A Unicast Hello carrying a given seqno should normally be sent to just one neighbour (over unicast), since the sequence numbers of different neighbours are not in general synchronised. We can strengthen this if you wish. From nobody Wed Mar 28 06:11:39 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 402B1126FDC for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:11:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.011 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=toke.dk Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F_xTGPG7uccw for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:11:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [IPv6:2001:470:dc45:1000::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2C44127023 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:11:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1522242689; bh=evUGMjaKEhaS/MgpQrtv4aWv6p80JMDgBXNxH42QKkA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=M/7lwToP0gOXIw8MGJejbLQCL2cmMntE3L+pLMtJHTpvRWTBZPFMSMaOwuMJPfhY1 FivPoF9Sc/OgWPzBdB/6Px3FCsk3Gdl+R5uuR6psXfNT404rhZCyh3O4oJ4V0OhAnk aYoGK0pK0rgMEEe05+QWd5PYjewvjhUQYyoAKnTAK+gOZVrogZ1j9vmBUxjpybamTo +CcdQIMsS5aHkzLlRmHLg4cqXVWmqr+g5rTFPqvOBvNkhfipzyrvacEo7ZYv1KnF8C /Cd2oEaExK8EwvP2KLTXHof+Zk0qXKuzjLng0yOKHmRT6NSYmetM3Zwnu5cZSdBAaO MwTkC4rzo+hEQ== To: Juliusz Chroboczek Cc: Denis Ovsienko , Babel at IETF In-Reply-To: <87efk41h6z.wl-jch@irif.fr> References: <87k1u1uekt.wl-jch@irif.fr> <16263df4d35.c134482a130573.7360272675488949721@ovsienko.info> <87r2o6k2jm.wl-jch@irif.fr> <162642bbd2f.1266904f2130878.513114391174006256@ovsienko.info> <87po3qech1.fsf@toke.dk> <1626c14d206.11a73a01135842.5517559371574417385@ovsienko.info> <871sg4jybq.fsf@toke.dk> <87h8p01ias.wl-jch@irif.fr> <87bmf8icvc.fsf@toke.dk> <87efk41h6z.wl-jch@irif.fr> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 15:11:29 +0200 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <878tacibum.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Work to do (IHU TLV AE 0) X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 13:11:37 -0000 Juliusz Chroboczek writes: >> But nothing about the unicast spec requires that the packet actually be >> sent with a unicast destination address. That presumably needs to be >> fixed, then? > > Section 3.4.1 of 6126bis: > > There are two kinds of Hellos: Multicast Hellos, which use a per- > interface Hello counter, and Unicast Hellos, which use a per- > neighbour counter. A Multicast Hello with a given seqno MUST be sent > to all neighbours on a given interface, either by sending it to a > multicast address or by sending it to one unicast address per > neighbour (hence, the term "Multicast Hello" is a slight misnomer). > A Unicast Hello carrying a given seqno should normally be sent to > just one neighbour (over unicast), since the sequence numbers of > different neighbours are not in general synchronised. > > We can strengthen this if you wish. Well, "should normally be" is not going to fix any security issues ;) I guess the important bit is to mandate that the receiving end discard the packet if it is not received "correctly". But this could be added to 7298bis instead I guess... -Toke From nobody Wed Mar 28 06:35:11 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 589A912706D for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:35:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Kha-Sy11cJcz for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:35:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B075912704A for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:35:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:1]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/75695) with ESMTP id w2SDZ4qD005301 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 28 Mar 2018 15:35:04 +0200 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay2/75695) with ESMTP id w2SDZ57f003892; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 15:35:05 +0200 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C94D7EB276; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 15:35:03 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id wdlvwZVbdOL8; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 15:35:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from trurl.irif.fr (unknown [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DA612EB275; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 15:35:02 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 15:35:02 +0200 Message-ID: <87bmf81fy1.wl-jch@irif.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: Toke =?ISO-8859-1?Q?H=F8iland-J=F8rgensen?= Cc: Denis Ovsienko , Babel at IETF In-Reply-To: <878tacibum.fsf@toke.dk> References: <87k1u1uekt.wl-jch@irif.fr> <16263df4d35.c134482a130573.7360272675488949721@ovsienko.info> <87r2o6k2jm.wl-jch@irif.fr> <162642bbd2f.1266904f2130878.513114391174006256@ovsienko.info> <87po3qech1.fsf@toke.dk> <1626c14d206.11a73a01135842.5517559371574417385@ovsienko.info> <871sg4jybq.fsf@toke.dk> <87h8p01ias.wl-jch@irif.fr> <87bmf8icvc.fsf@toke.dk> <87efk41h6z.wl-jch@irif.fr> <878tacibum.fsf@toke.dk> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]); Wed, 28 Mar 2018 15:35:04 +0200 (CEST) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.141]); Wed, 28 Mar 2018 15:35:05 +0200 (CEST) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 5ABB9A08.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-Miltered: at potemkin with ID 5ABB9A09.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5ABB9A08.001 from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/null/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5ABB9A09.000 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5ABB9A08.001 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5ABB9A09.000 on potemkin.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Work to do (IHU TLV AE 0) X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 13:35:07 -0000 >> We can strengthen this if you wish. > Well, "should normally be" is not going to fix any security issues ;) I think we're not understanding each other. What security issue are you speaking about? What attack exactly is fixed by putting MUST here? -- Juliusz From nobody Wed Mar 28 06:41:49 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1357112D810 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:41:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.011 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=toke.dk Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GWYEMnsY0SYt for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:41:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [52.28.52.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10D4F127873 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:41:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1522244500; bh=WoDkGR3CuWCFxfK3UhHcVfcbmAr1xbx0qirnfAu2XkQ=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=GBIOyxDxMbiM2rg084qX2npemGs+NHpUw2Zty5dmP/ZpKu/LTLl/kU+2G/mg3VXQx QvPD5DbiBATrsjdE0zSyLTZVD8XRBuHgSacNwQkNXojFqTAkc9D2OL8Q5trnj8SD2e 9ZW0MEItUv14RcHu7+TprmMJBuepOIvDztCF+Sd2JS1QRaDRwerJU2rLO+xcuG+itr 5aZQngWbcXhy74XmxST6wR2QOIAcaJf59K7O9dk7T1WBxhDBAC/Ag3oyeiF5ZYEFPV qZDLTf7W+qaFIBWProAR4uEK+XRcyAlTNDmjj3GEa7Jo27j8TJHzTOV+tBsgH3a822 8uJqWFyc7kJUw== To: Juliusz Chroboczek Cc: Denis Ovsienko , Babel at IETF In-Reply-To: <87bmf81fy1.wl-jch@irif.fr> References: <87k1u1uekt.wl-jch@irif.fr> <16263df4d35.c134482a130573.7360272675488949721@ovsienko.info> <87r2o6k2jm.wl-jch@irif.fr> <162642bbd2f.1266904f2130878.513114391174006256@ovsienko.info> <87po3qech1.fsf@toke.dk> <1626c14d206.11a73a01135842.5517559371574417385@ovsienko.info> <871sg4jybq.fsf@toke.dk> <87h8p01ias.wl-jch@irif.fr> <87bmf8icvc.fsf@toke.dk> <87efk41h6z.wl-jch@irif.fr> <878tacibum.fsf@toke.dk> <87bmf81fy1.wl-jch@irif.fr> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 15:41:40 +0200 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <87sh8kgvvv.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Work to do (IHU TLV AE 0) X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 13:41:47 -0000 Juliusz Chroboczek writes: >>> We can strengthen this if you wish. > >> Well, "should normally be" is not going to fix any security issues ;) > > I think we're not understanding each other. What security issue are you > speaking about? What attack exactly is fixed by putting MUST here? Erm, the one you were just talking about? Quoth you: > Alice sends Bob a unicast Hello with seqno 42, properly authentified. > Chloe captures the Hello, and resends it to Damian. > Damian accepts it as a properly authentified unicast Hello from Alice to Damian. > > The flaw here is a combination of two facts, neither of which is harmful > in itself: > > - a unicast Hello doesn't carry its destination in the body; > - the HMAC algorithm doesn't protect the destination address. -Toke From nobody Wed Mar 28 06:42:58 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C33D127077 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:42:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.011 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=toke.dk Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MxbiHWWpsBgc for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:42:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [IPv6:2001:470:dc45:1000::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A94FF12706D for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:42:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1522244574; bh=cnZF9J2Y433Vhfts0XM/7ZRg24e2Zl6mm9D8WDCq56g=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=IwIA57BjUS/AunV5NW+s8s5OdRV6fm+p+Kdrj0tQU9z6LqZ2ReoQJlA+SVrtsNkdW RqobionmrkIeyaqxtT7M1Bz5Y57wrUcd82bsbOrRPayB0W6Qwg4AsELEq503ljgHZ0 7FltMpN5xIDn5fkL8tsQLPmA5WIN19xc6IK9z3xrP09YghYEf/E2BjmeUfAfEl9oxg C9huAsRMmR+m6dvg9Kz1d76GGW2lvhCLmYrF5r/OHo30cmXUrKAZWdwgQZwXNECqB6 OeZi5cWP0PjQn1+kXdzGTCfb2BMqQkekFkQDnVxfm+EctkcEos6HBw/nReK0h3DPZq ROEEgVKL498qg== To: Juliusz Chroboczek Cc: Denis Ovsienko , Babel at IETF In-Reply-To: <87sh8kgvvv.fsf@toke.dk> References: <87k1u1uekt.wl-jch@irif.fr> <16263df4d35.c134482a130573.7360272675488949721@ovsienko.info> <87r2o6k2jm.wl-jch@irif.fr> <162642bbd2f.1266904f2130878.513114391174006256@ovsienko.info> <87po3qech1.fsf@toke.dk> <1626c14d206.11a73a01135842.5517559371574417385@ovsienko.info> <871sg4jybq.fsf@toke.dk> <87h8p01ias.wl-jch@irif.fr> <87bmf8icvc.fsf@toke.dk> <87efk41h6z.wl-jch@irif.fr> <878tacibum.fsf@toke.dk> <87bmf81fy1.wl-jch@irif.fr> <87sh8kgvvv.fsf@toke.dk> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 15:42:54 +0200 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <87muysgvtt.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Work to do (IHU TLV AE 0) X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 13:42:57 -0000 Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen writes: > Juliusz Chroboczek writes: > >>>> We can strengthen this if you wish. >> >>> Well, "should normally be" is not going to fix any security issues ;) >> >> I think we're not understanding each other. What security issue are you >> speaking about? What attack exactly is fixed by putting MUST here? > > Erm, the one you were just talking about? (not saying that MUST send over unicast will fix anything by itself; just that it needs to be dealt with as part of a solution) -Toke From nobody Fri Mar 30 07:59:15 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05B05126C3D for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 07:59:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.311 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=apple.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JvrLirDVqFeR for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 07:59:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-in21.apple.com (mail-out21.apple.com [17.171.2.31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18F42124BE8 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 07:59:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=apple.com; s=mailout2048s; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt; i=@apple.com; t=1522421951; x=2386335551; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-id:To:Cc:MIME-version:Content-type: Content-transfer-encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-reply-to:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=lP0xcxKoAsH/puUW2I3PLbTG3+NHOU/IJ7cZcbHb8s8=; b=hrS9xJXvzX83djTq9j5RHzPFwObfbY6JXQzXyra7/Pd8ztqvwYB9VgZNBI92ERoy MkUWix7E2Z9NlM2CQ/qmGaaSX2zDQO8oviPDHWVLVJ9/SGeoqk4aPOnFu6t3XIXK sTA7+V4qcqRf1nzOyfRuyfPAuDYAk00sL/HeaZSf0uypzF/dZ9FesVhsBMwNq/1r Kkn0BYDkNhrEfTfQBugiUQlce9+kSlWvKWEK+72ACnfLS1Gb36TRnxNxMmJKefqT cB2tTXUZrGmI5g84JUf1QwhNVTAvgneResZ/+/qcG2Wa4x5ltGHZ47/cyQEF52UW WijiA3QLlEltDKc464bfOQ==; Received: from relay4.apple.com (relay4.apple.com [17.128.113.87]) (using TLS with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail-in21.apple.com (Apple Secure Mail Relay) with SMTP id B4.2F.03684.EB05EBA5; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 07:59:11 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 11ab0215-9f40d9e000000e64-4f-5abe50be6ec7 Received: from nwk-mmpp-sz12.apple.com (nwk-mmpp-sz12.apple.com [17.128.115.204]) (using TLS with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by relay4.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id AD.87.11536.EB05EBA5; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 07:59:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Received: from [17.234.100.205] (unknown [17.234.100.205]) by nwk-mmpp-sz12.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 8.0.2.2.20180130 64bit (built Jan 30 2018)) with ESMTPSA id <0P6E00FP7SAL5L30@nwk-mmpp-sz12.apple.com>; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 07:59:10 -0700 (PDT) Sender: dschinazi@apple.com From: David Schinazi In-reply-to: <87muysgvtt.fsf@toke.dk> Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 07:59:09 -0700 Cc: Juliusz Chroboczek , Denis Ovsienko , Babel at IETF Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Message-id: <9E3DBF48-F991-43BA-AD12-F4433A2CEF30@apple.com> References: <87k1u1uekt.wl-jch@irif.fr> <16263df4d35.c134482a130573.7360272675488949721@ovsienko.info> <87r2o6k2jm.wl-jch@irif.fr> <162642bbd2f.1266904f2130878.513114391174006256@ovsienko.info> <87po3qech1.fsf@toke.dk> <1626c14d206.11a73a01135842.5517559371574417385@ovsienko.info> <871sg4jybq.fsf@toke.dk> <87h8p01ias.wl-jch@irif.fr> <87bmf8icvc.fsf@toke.dk> <87efk41h6z.wl-jch@irif.fr> <878tacibum.fsf@toke.dk> <87bmf81fy1.wl-jch@irif.fr> <87sh8kgvvv.fsf@toke.dk> <87muysgvtt.fsf@toke.dk> To: =?utf-8?Q?Toke_H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrLLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUi2FAYrrs/YF+UQdNmEYsti7pZLObc+s5i Mb91GZvF1vcr2B1YPJYs+cnksXjLW0aPFSc3snlsOXSRLYAlissmJTUnsyy1SN8ugStj9ucP rAWLhSs+3ZjH0sC4n7+LkZNDQsBEovPcLbYuRi4OIYE1TBLHDp1jgklcW9TCDJHYwCRx/uRC VpAEr4CgxI/J91i6GDk4mAXUJaZMyYWomcwksfrmG2aQGmEBaYmuC3dZIWw9iQdvellB6tkE tCQOrDECMTkFVCUWrbABqWABMrc8OsEIYjML5Ei87F/ODmFrSzx5dwGsk1fARuLglVSITb+Y JU6+vcwGUiMiYC/R+PUCC8TJShLTv99mg7AXsEl8m8g1gVF4FpKjZyEcPQvJhgWMzKsYhXMT M3N0M/OMDPUSCwpyUvWS83M3MYLCfzWT6A7G+a8MDzEKcDAq8fCeYNwbJcSaWFZcmXuIUZqD RUmc99rzxighgfTEktTs1NSC1KL4otKc1OJDjEwcnFINjBFKf/uybuQpvZpwVvR26+XZuZuO yxSqC4sXJ06vabvy9VxEW/nFI3kP9CSCGzebM5kW7WgVS7Z40BVosf2Z4WSzPzdbbe1XXX6Z fCdnW/2tp7Ym/9rvJ1hPneX6U7k05Yacp217ulO3u01Blvc/aw7OfTtesPgpG7fYc7/YfCE3 6WEB/7JNSizFGYmGWsxFxYkAu445D2ACAAA= X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrALMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUi2FB8RndfwL4og6UPjC22LOpmsZhz6zuL xfzWZWwWW9+vYHdg8Viy5CeTx+Itbxk9VpzcyOax5dBFtgCWKC6blNSczLLUIn27BK6M2Z8/ sBYsFq74dGMeSwPjfv4uRk4OCQETiWuLWpi7GLk4hAQ2MEmcP7mQFSTBKyAo8WPyPZYuRg4O ZgF1iSlTciFqJjNJrL75hhmkRlhAWqLrwl1WCFtP4sGbXlaQejYBLYkDa4xATE4BVYlFK2xA KliAzC2PTjCC2MwCORIv+5ezQ9jaEk/eXQDr5BWwkTh4JRVi0y9miZNvL7OB1IgI2Es0fr3A AnGyksT077fZJjAKzEJy6CyEQ2chmbqAkXkVo0BRak5ipYleYkFBTqpecn7uJkZwuBaG72D8 t8zqEKMAB6MSD68Cy94oIdbEsuLK3EOMEhzMSiK8VieBQrwpiZVVqUX58UWlOanFhxilOViU xHk7uXZGCQmkJ5akZqemFqQWwWSZODilGhjrl6wPFVXxdhc6OnvT0R2+Rj/9GPXfZO37+Nye ocM5peys1WPfzJaQ9uu/St6+OXFWjdvv99RZf67Ortxswv5rZvKutwvfaT82Xj/ltoxV4Vy3 trxd21gCfnyIv7VKi+/vwiiRiXKfauezJXUpzTATSLufUPegxLTb98e3LaGNRzPyhFqM238r sRRnJBpqMRcVJwIA9WZpQVMCAAA= Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Work to do (IHU TLV AE 0) X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 14:59:14 -0000 Taking a step back and thinking about the security properties here, I don't see a security issue with the text "A Unicast Hello carrying a = given seqno should normally be sent to just one neighbour". The conceptual property of unicast hellos is that the seqno is from a = different pool as the multicast seqno. That means that I MUST treat them separately when I receive them to = avoid mixing up cost estimations, however as a sender I can very well send the same unicast seqno to all = my neighbors if I so choose. As such it is not a problem to send Unicast Hellos to the multicast = address (even though I don't see a reason to do so). The attack that Juliusz described was where Eve takes an unicast Hello = from Alice destined for Bob and sends it to Damian, in that case the problem arises because Damian will check the = timestamp/packet counter from the Alice-Damian relationship and get a seqno from the Alice-Bob relationship. The attack stems from the fact that packets can be replayed with a = falsified destination address. The simplest fix is to have the destination address as part of the = inputs to the HMAC function. Here is a proposal: we replace the current construct where the IPv6 = source address is written into the HMAC field before HMAC with a different construct akin to the TCP pseudo-header: we set the = HMAC field to all zeroes and prepend the source and destination IP addresses to the Babel payload before computing the HMAC. = This is simpler and does not require us to place requirements on the size of the HMAC output. Thanks, David > On Mar 28, 2018, at 06:42, Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen = wrote: >=20 > Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen writes: >=20 >> Juliusz Chroboczek writes: >>=20 >>>>> We can strengthen this if you wish. >>>=20 >>>> Well, "should normally be" is not going to fix any security issues = ;) >>>=20 >>> I think we're not understanding each other. What security issue are = you >>> speaking about? What attack exactly is fixed by putting MUST here? >>=20 >> Erm, the one you were just talking about? >=20 > (not saying that MUST send over unicast will fix anything by itself; > just that it needs to be dealt with as part of a solution) >=20 > -Toke >=20 > _______________________________________________ > babel mailing list > babel@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel From nobody Fri Mar 30 08:02:02 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42CF112711E for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:02:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.311 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=apple.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IibhG6FkTE8V for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:01:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-in6.apple.com (mail-out6.apple.com [17.151.62.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CBF0D1270A3 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:01:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=apple.com; s=mailout2048s; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt; i=@apple.com; t=1522422119; x=2386335719; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-id:To:Cc:MIME-version:Content-type: Content-transfer-encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-reply-to:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=Fqb13ppkzFJ1lslYvLQB4vLK9p+l6nwGQzh5HpKJW+M=; b=CrFIWSASyQLP2V41EuPZxPaHGFEfxw1iiuTgj88YOOVXJvx6spqm0+x2LejbIsev IZBR7TkpK/5ZKU/zKWBiTNya3JJnWByBlDE0RC+US5oCnLsbJbPoFFeTEOr4jyWk 8E6cFLX5dkVirRNOx2zSMi5RXrUXn0BrCXvameOlebRWxZv+Ik5JlUN35AUXrj5y NhgxDbkDr7rAch2jSpP9YoE7/tbAbNcuM5l1o0UMr7j7gkiq8kzZsRDArLrhuGcO oLBXtomVucAnnNEMTUfKL9oGBTMeNvesoWyM/14nEO6Axex0eNgNaUcks+47a8r3 eMSuvA0dUro8IfbVtAPHLg==; Received: from relay6.apple.com (relay6.apple.com [17.128.113.90]) (using TLS with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail-in6.apple.com (Apple Secure Mail Relay) with SMTP id E0.BB.28259.7615EBA5; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:01:59 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 11973e15-f06549e000006e63-59-5abe5167e5b8 Received: from nwk-mmpp-sz12.apple.com (nwk-mmpp-sz12.apple.com [17.128.115.204]) (using TLS with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by relay6.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id 20.2C.23861.7615EBA5; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:01:59 -0700 (PDT) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Received: from [17.234.100.205] (unknown [17.234.100.205]) by nwk-mmpp-sz12.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 8.0.2.2.20180130 64bit (built Jan 30 2018)) with ESMTPSA id <0P6E00FVDSF85L30@nwk-mmpp-sz12.apple.com>; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:01:59 -0700 (PDT) Sender: dschinazi@apple.com From: David Schinazi In-reply-to: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DD5785F@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:01:56 -0700 Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Toke_H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= , Donald Eastlake , Babel at IETF , "babel-chairs@ietf.org" Message-id: <8E8FF057-BF1C-4002-BE71-675638BA033E@apple.com> References: <877epyfz83.fsf@toke.dk> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DD5785F@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> To: "STARK, BARBARA H" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrMLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUi2FAYpZseuC/K4MoTVYvTvbdYLLYs6max mPT3J6PFwe2aFlvfr2B3YPV42T+H0WPnrLvsHkuW/GTy2HLoIlsASxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJX RsNrzYI5rBXnZrxmb2CcxtLFyMkhIWAi8fn2C9YuRi4OIYHVTBInj/cwwyRaf1xhg0hsYJJo +nqVCSTBKyAo8WPyPaBuDg5mAXmJg+dlQcLMAloS3x+1skDUT2aSuDS/gx0kISwgLdF14S4r hJ0p0dE0mRWklw2o4cAaI5Awp0CMxIVVy8BKWARUJZ5dmAC2l1lgB6PEzWMbofbaSLw43w21 YC+jRNujq2ALRATUJVZNm84KcbWSxPTvt8G6JQQWsEls3bmZaQKj8Cwkh89COHwWksMXMDKv YhTKTczM0c3MM9NLLCjISdVLzs/dxAiKhel2ojsYz6yyOsQowMGoxMOrwLI3Sog1say4MvcQ ozQHi5I4r7E9UEggPbEkNTs1tSC1KL6oNCe1+BAjEwenVAOjl16u+x2eTX4dD3JNoy9p67Hy nlo599QCVetLwokdc7k/qH/8f8f8+F4H7WNuCzs4Px6Z8Tmr6Otq9VjT5Le9J9V465ZPfsHF 1c1cmpCseC3ad6XVy1qGm0xiqc/2Oodw/DV+a9spEr3l/tJl77e/UWhonqEry7r1v8GxCzLs s/bvbUv5NH+hEktxRqKhFnNRcSIAhagnnGYCAAA= X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrGLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUi2FB8Rjc9cF+UwYJeZYvTvbdYLLYs6max mPT3J6PFwe2aFlvfr2B3YPV42T+H0WPnrLvsHkuW/GTy2HLoIlsASxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJX RsNrzYI5rBXnZrxmb2CcxtLFyMkhIWAi0frjClsXIxeHkMAGJommr1eZQBK8AoISPybfAyri 4GAWkJc4eF4WJMwsoCXx/VErC0T9ZCaJS/M72EESwgLSEl0X7rJC2JkSHU2TWUF62YAaDqwx AglzCsRIXFi1DKyERUBV4tmFCWB7mQV2MErcPLYRaq+NxIvz3VAL9jJKtD26CrZAREBdYtW0 6awQVytJTP9+m20Co8AsJLfOQrh1FpJbFzAyr2IUKErNSaw000ssKMhJ1UvOz93ECA7dwqgd jA3LrQ4xCnAwKvHwKrDsjRJiTSwrrsw9xCjBwawkwmt1EijEm5JYWZValB9fVJqTWnyIUZqD RUmct5NrZ5SQQHpiSWp2ampBahFMlomDU6qBMbD87FIh+SsfFqeomorfqGljOMWy+vrl/Wt4 zx3j1DUUjtbQzV74V+Wb0sK8CtcXAcf9/Z58FOVlv2EWaFjIendNefTd3q3qLp917t05I1c6 rT1oEfuCDC9G3j+Htj7LWbJzx+QvWtJ891uV3R8m/F6TKDZZcE+o+tT98/rYzU7tE+pie/Nf VomlOCPRUIu5qDgRAOYqOs5ZAgAA Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Call for WG adoption of draft-ovsienko-babel-rfc7298bis (2018-03-25 to 2018-04-08) X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 15:02:01 -0000 I also support adoption. I will try to find time to implement this before IETF 102. David > On Mar 26, 2018, at 22:33, STARK, BARBARA H wrote: > >>> This message announces a two week adoption call for >>> draft-ovsienko-babel-rfc7298bis-00.txt running for two week starting >>> from the posting of >>> >>> Please comment as to whether or not you think this draft is good basis >>> for further work by the BABEL WG. >> >> I support adoption :) > > I support adoption, too. > Barbara > > _______________________________________________ > babel mailing list > babel@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel From nobody Fri Mar 30 08:17:59 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7F96127077 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:17:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.311 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=apple.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id thkBjZuD4zHN for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:17:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-in5.apple.com (mail-out5.apple.com [17.151.62.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92DE8126FDC for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:17:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=apple.com; s=mailout2048s; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt; i=@apple.com; t=1522423076; x=2386336676; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-id:To:Cc:MIME-version:Content-type: Content-transfer-encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-reply-to:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=IY9fYi0670Th2E3wIfzt/7O9zdTMW9fILwT2M/VegZ4=; b=KFOe8Wnxhrmv0b5wx0mLlPVSOXOLuigzrOO0lH/cR33CVqDx4lc06lZ6lD71rcUV W6sY+NjUeL7IDhjJ/GyDS9agpCCZmyAI+HTFzco3EMnZuaCNcYQUEcYpG9Fn3xTF rKS5XjBYm1YXCrRdsMomZxeGXLL4FunHhSagm29wV2qDSUBf4xP5Q98sn9cDbhxZ q4k33+qbajrQFMEoEEs0J0Jvgbp9kUtd08X9jN2CJbAKoUXTw8aycRDJwQX2NO4T GaHg65Cvy3eWfrQOkRDRl8djNoM22EplktvyK9uWk0pejUO9EU32DZFfT2nWxifQ VwT1NaXBNSkQ9pZtnSKSxg==; Received: from relay3.apple.com (relay3.apple.com [17.128.113.83]) (using TLS with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail-in5.apple.com (Apple Secure Mail Relay) with SMTP id 87.08.13704.4255EBA5; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:17:56 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 11973e13-3f68e9e000003588-cd-5abe5524070f Received: from nwk-mmpp-sz12.apple.com (nwk-mmpp-sz12.apple.com [17.128.115.204]) (using TLS with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by relay3.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id AA.56.18185.3255EBA5; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:17:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Received: from [17.234.100.205] (unknown [17.234.100.205]) by nwk-mmpp-sz12.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 8.0.2.2.20180130 64bit (built Jan 30 2018)) with ESMTPSA id <0P6E000W2T5S3W00@nwk-mmpp-sz12.apple.com>; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:17:55 -0700 (PDT) Sender: dschinazi@apple.com From: David Schinazi In-reply-to: <874ll2fyr7.fsf@toke.dk> Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:17:51 -0700 Cc: Donald Eastlake , Babel at IETF , babel-chairs@ietf.org Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Message-id: <6146768D-B041-438D-82C3-5BDD098E9E11@apple.com> References: <874ll2fyr7.fsf@toke.dk> To: =?utf-8?Q?Toke_H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrOLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUi2FAYrKsSui/KoOseu8Xp3lssFlsWdbNY HNyuabH1/Qp2BxaPnbPusnssWfKTyWPLoYtsAcxRXDYpqTmZZalF+nYJXBnNt1ezFCxlr7jQ PJ+5gfEPaxcjJ4eEgInE5/0nGLsYuTiEBFYzSbx+9gDI4QBLrPjLAhHfwCTx8/07JpAGXgFB iR+T77GA1DALqEtMmZILUTOZSeLfofmMIDXCAtISXRfuskLYyRILnu4Bm8kmoCVxYI0RSJhT QFXiYtcrNhCbBcg++K6THcRmFoiX+HV7DQuErS3x5N0FVoi1NhKfGmeC2UICuRL3Om8yg9gi AvYSjV8vsED8oiQx/fttNpB7JASmsEnc7ZzPMoFReBaSs2chnD0LyYoFjMyrGIVyEzNzdDPz TPUSCwpyUvWS83M3MYJCfrqd8A7G06usDjEKcDAq8fBWsO2NEmJNLCuuzD3EKM3BoiTOa2IP FBJITyxJzU5NLUgtii8qzUktPsTIxMEp1cC4LphNIMTeTvPgkR0mgez/5Vebrnw8lzmGj6H5 BeOzriXPm2oml/WKPZ/tdpTrfT2bdu1Epzk6UUIy+xaLXddQPbJ7UaLyl0fih6ulijV9hXxP f/WSjzrF0/zw5VJl0+efJxRsFbh/i8GDa+vtiVtyj2mqxIeJtKROaGBdmPf1lWutfiXfki4l luKMREMt5qLiRACn+9d7WgIAAA== X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrFLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUi2FB8RlcldF+UwZmfzBane2+xWGxZ1M1i cXC7psXW9yvYHVg8ds66y+6xZMlPJo8thy6yBTBHcdmkpOZklqUW6dslcGU0317NUrCUveJC 83zmBsY/rF2MHBwSAiYSK/6ydDFycQgJbGCS+Pn+HVMXIycHr4CgxI/J91hAapgF1CWmTMmF qJnMJPHv0HxGkBphAWmJrgt3WSHsZIkFT/cwgtSzCWhJHFhjBBLmFFCVuNj1ig3EZgGyD77r ZAexmQXiJX7dXsMCYWtLPHl3gRVirY3Ep8aZYLaQQK7Evc6bzCC2iIC9ROPXC2D1EgJKEtO/ 32abwCgwC8mlsxAunYVk6gJG5lWMAkWpOYmVxnqJBQU5qXrJ+bmbGMEhWhi8g/HPMqtDjAIc jEo8vAose6OEWBPLiitzDzFKcDArifBanQQK8aYkVlalFuXHF5XmpBYfYpTmYFES5+3k2hkl JJCeWJKanZpakFoEk2Xi4JRqYDRbviT+7apZoYFT8me9sHvo+t3i7pofgdpbVh2+yitmq/x+ fu103iIL+f/mLouSbnt/yuPkO/CVW3Oaio7j5bVXlopnqQmX9vxZEsgY8mxJSbwPr67449aQ P159dzJ+GHJP2vwzY1FxgUqMUOwvPo2IOyLVvqzzpfbtdQstP9TYxiMnylKUqsRSnJFoqMVc VJwIANLHxGFNAgAA Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-babel-source-specific (2018-03-26 to 2018-04-09) X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 15:17:58 -0000 Hello, I have just re-read the document and believe it is clear, concise, and = ready for advancement. One small point: since source-specific references rfc6126bis, we may = want to hold source-specific until rfc6126 is published, but that can happen after = source-specific has gone through IESG review. David > On Mar 26, 2018, at 12:00, Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen = wrote: >=20 > Donald Eastlake writes: >=20 >> Hi, >>=20 >> This message starts a two-week WG Last Call on >> draft-ietf-babel-source-specific-03.txt. Please review the draft and >> indicate whether you think it is ready for advancement. Comments >> welcome. >=20 > Having implemented this, I believe it is ready for publication :) >=20 > -Toke >=20 > _______________________________________________ > babel mailing list > babel@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel From nobody Fri Mar 30 12:37:39 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 195FE124E15 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 12:37:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FlgHWoHtsZdU for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 12:37:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D05B11252BA for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 12:37:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:1]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/75695) with ESMTP id w2UJbXcJ009712 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 21:37:33 +0200 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay2/75695) with ESMTP id w2UJbYZ3024300 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 21:37:34 +0200 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26D6FEB276 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 21:37:33 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id haEW-kFidcs4 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 21:37:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from trurl.irif.fr (unknown [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4C7D7EB275 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 21:37:32 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 21:37:32 +0200 Message-ID: <87fu4huzgj.wl-jch@irif.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: babel@ietf.org User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]); Fri, 30 Mar 2018 21:37:33 +0200 (CEST) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.141]); Fri, 30 Mar 2018 21:37:35 +0200 (CEST) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 5ABE91FD.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-Miltered: at potemkin with ID 5ABE91FE.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5ABE91FD.001 from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/null/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5ABE91FE.000 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5ABE91FD.001 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5ABE91FE.000 on potemkin.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Archived-At: Subject: [babel] Comments about rfc7298bis X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 19:37:38 -0000 Dear all, The following is a summary of discussions that I've had with David Schinazi, Clara Dô, and Weronika Kołodziejak. I'm no longer sure who made which comment, so I'll just summarise the discussion. 1. We still don't have a clear and concise description of the attack against 7298. That would be helpful, especially if we are meant to work together. 2. The procedure that consists in putting the source IP into the HMAC field before hashing is bizarre. A more straightforward solution would be to prepend the source IP to the whole Babel packet, similarly to the TCP pseudo-header. Note that this does not break the ability to have multiple HMACs. 3. I think it is necessary to protect the destination IP in addition to the source IP. This prevents some pretty obvious attacks against IHU, Ack and Unicast Hello TLVs, and might in the future prevent attacks against extensions. 4. For clarity, the TC/PC sub-TLV should be renamed to TC/PC Echo. 5. It's not clear to me what happens when a diskless clock-less node reboots and loses its sequence number. I'm sure it's described somewhere in the document, please point me at the right place. 6. I'm not sure that the IHU TLV is the right place to put the TC/PC echo -- what about putting it in a sub-TLV of TC/PC itself? 7. What's the fragmentation procedure when the whole set of TC/PC echos exceeds the size of a packet? -- Juliusz