From jmh@joelhalpern.com Sun Nov 17 01:27:42 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 821AC11E8982; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 01:27:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pooC9p356zOh; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 01:27:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailc2.tigertech.net (mailc2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.156]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 379F511E89EC; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 01:25:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AA721BC4BB7; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 01:25:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at c2.tigertech.net Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (c213-89-137-101.bredband.comhem.se [213.89.137.101]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AD73A1BC4B57; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 01:25:44 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52888B96.4080804@joelhalpern.com> Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 04:25:42 -0500 From: "Joel M. Halpern" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "karp@ietf.org" , "lisp@ietf.org" References: <20131116192109.11370.23437.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20131116192109.11370.23437.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20131116192109.11370.23437.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [karp] Fwd: NOMCOM - final call for feedback, nominee list X-BeenThere: karp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for key management for routing and transport protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 09:27:42 -0000 Please look at the lists, and provide what concrete feedback you can. Yours, Joel -------- Original Message -------- Subject: NOMCOM - final call for feedback, nominee list Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 11:21:09 -0800 From: NomCom Chair 2013 Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org, nomcom13@ietf.org To: IETF Announcement List CC: wgchairs@ietf.org Help the Nomcom: this is the last call for general feedback on nominees. This email includes the willing nominee list for your convenience, as per RFC 5680. WG chairs, please forward this email to your WGs. WARNING - DO NOT reply to this email with feedback - the announcement tool provides an unpredictable Reply-To field. You may send mail to nomcom13, but please do continue reading for additional info. The deadline is midnight (any timezone) Wed Nov 20. Enter your feedback into the encrypted nomcom tool at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/nomcom/2013/feedback/ All feedback is confidential. Select individual nominees, or select an area (e.g. INT Multiple) if you want to give feedback on multiple nominees for that area in one entry. The Nomcom will greatly appreciate your concrete and detailed thoughts on nominees. You need to have a datatracker account in order to enter feedback. This is the site to access either to create a datatracker account or to reset the password on an existing account: https://datatracker.ietf.org/accounts/ As we announced last week, we are sharing the names of the willing nominees in this email, as part of our use of RFC 5680 Open List in this nomcom cycle. These names (appearing at the end of the email) have been available within the datatracker since our first call for feedback; we hope some people will be extra encouraged to provide feedback by seeing the names prior to datatracker login. All your feedback must be entered in the encrypted nomcom site (or mailed to nomcom-chair-2013@ietf.org or nomcom13@ietf.org). You may ask the chair or any another nomcom member to submit your feedback without your name attached, if you would prefer. Again, your feedback is absolutely confidential, however delivered. Thanks very much from all of us for your time and for helping the Nomcom to do the best possible job. Also enormous thanks to the willing nominees. Names below. Allison for the Nomcom APP Joe Hildebrand Barry Leiba (incumbent) Yoshiro Yoneya INT Donald Eastlake Wesley George Brian Haberman (incumbent) Ole Troan OPS Benoit Claise (incumbent) Linda Dunbar Victor Kuarsingh Bill Manning RAI Ben Campbell Alissa Cooper Keith Drage Dan Romascanu RTG Loa Andersson Alia Atlas Deborah Brungard Stewart Bryant (incumbent) Donald Eastlake Susan Hares Keyur Patel SEC Derek Atkins Donald Eastlake Jeff Hodges Leif Johansson Alexey Melnikov Kathleen Moriarty Eric Rescorla TSV Martin Stiemerling (incumbent) Dave Taht IAB Bernard Aboba (incumbent) Loa Andersson Alias Atlas Mary Barnes Marc Blanchet (incumbent) Ross Callon (incumbent) Hago Dafalla Linda Dunbar Roni Even Jim Gettys Ted Hardie Susan Hares Joe Hildebrand Sheng Jiang Eliot Lear (incumbent) Larry Masinter S. Moonesamy Kathleen Moriarty Kaveh Ranjbar Robert Sparks Tina Tsou Brian Trammell IAOC/IETF Trust Glenn Deen Tobias Gondrom Chris Griffiths (incumbent) John Levine Tina Tsou From zehn.cao@gmail.com Sun Nov 17 18:21:01 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CDE011E819E for ; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 18:21:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PSujmcNIkkiT for ; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 18:21:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qc0-x233.google.com (mail-qc0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C7BA11E80E2 for ; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 18:21:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qc0-f179.google.com with SMTP id w4so2288198qcr.24 for ; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 18:21:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=7YFN0AuFQnTxi3DFO1AGnqLdPLPABsJU7tHg+dWU1Ns=; b=La+Pli6pv+y9uZYwC63IU/j6hp+1wXq0W0Hdz+JyNzHUilRcagi9KW5Jd3eK5Sf60R 4r2NPzKjsgA8r0YocEMgLJdQnv0+s3C2BXQl3o3ERKJZlXCfsfwVDXdrgVWbZ2D4444t iM08NnhHGoqjh9i1mRPVqJfpfEo9RfHb9sK2stOOxSL2Kcvw7tFWoBUxgM5xdg8mHOw5 m9wDSa68tecVWxvgyKY4WLZFSU2gJ8+9AxjnLuJskEPf/D19awWyVrZcokUfIkTThyq6 Cte4VGMbtozWD4ZRy6V/XFYlMQHpxhaNMsmcB391jxBXDBwT3hA5gyqnH8RZF79x9hqm ezeA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.224.0.139 with SMTP id 11mr30094563qab.34.1384741260086; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 18:21:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.96.146.72 with HTTP; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 18:20:59 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 10:20:59 +0800 Message-ID: From: "Cao,Zhen" To: karp@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [karp] Call for WG adoption: draft-mahesh-karp-rkmp-04 X-BeenThere: karp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for key management for routing and transport protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 02:21:01 -0000 Hello Excuse me for jump into the discussion. I would like to support the adoption of this document. Frankly speaking, due to overlap, I didn't attend the karp meeting but followed via the audio. I agree with the argument that using the technologies such as OF-config, a centralized controller can be used to distribute key materials to different network devices. However, I believe this automated key management solution is still desirable in large scale traditional network devices where there are no centralized controllers (which in the matter of facts nowadays without central-point-of-failure problem). This work can be regarded as a candidate solution for operators to secure their networks in a more flexible way. Many thanks, cz > -----Original Message----- > From: karp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:karp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Joel Halpern > Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 4:05 PM > To: karp@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [karp] Call for WG adoption: draft-mahesh-karp-rkmp-04 > Although there was a little discussion on this for the first few days, > there has been minimal comment since, and insufficient supportive > comments for adopting. > > Based on the chairs' guess that there is support, we are extending the > call for adoption by another week. > If you would like to see this document adopted by the working group, > please speak up. > > Thank you, > Joel (and Brian) > > On 7/29/13 3:18 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > > This draft has been discussed in the WG, and revised based on WG > > feedback and discussions among the authors. > > At this point, the question is whether it is ready for the WG to > > formally take the draft on and take it forward. > > > > So this is a call for adoption of > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mahesh-karp-rkmp/ > > by the KARP WG. > > Please respond to the list with support or substantive objections > > within > > 3 weeks (adding a week since we are in the IETF meeting. > > > > Yours, > > Joel M. Halpern > > _______________________________________________ > karp mailing list > karp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/karp From william.atwood@concordia.ca Tue Nov 26 12:01:41 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FBBA1ADFA1 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 12:01:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.663 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.663 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=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 WtJH-WqCyt5k for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 12:01:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from oldperseverance.encs.concordia.ca (oldperseverance.encs.concordia.ca [132.205.96.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADA601AE22D for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 12:01:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (bill@poise.encs.concordia.ca [132.205.2.209]) by oldperseverance.encs.concordia.ca (envelope-from william.atwood@concordia.ca) (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id rAQK1TYE012658 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 15:01:29 -0500 Message-ID: <5294FE1B.2080605@concordia.ca> Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 15:01:31 -0500 From: William Atwood Organization: Concordia University, Montreal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: KARP Working Group Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.58 on oldperseverance.encs.concordia.ca at 2013/11/26 15:01:29 EST Subject: [karp] Comment on draft-mahesh-karp-rkmp X-BeenThere: karp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for key management for routing and transport protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 20:01:41 -0000 I have been reading draft-mahesh-karp-rkmp, and I am puzzled by several issues. I discuss the first issue below. Once I understand what is intended by the authors, I expect to raise the other issues. (The way in which I will phrase these issues may depend on the answer to the first issue.) >From the name of the draft, I had always assumed that the document was talking about a "new" Key Management Protocol, called RKMP. However, the key phrase in the first paragraph is "defines a mechanism to secure such pairwise Routing Protocol (RP) associations using IKEv2 [RFC5996]". After the introduction, the document discusses how the exchanges build on the messages and exchange formats of IKEv2: where the semantics are the same, and where the semantics differ. To my mind, given the different semantics, the "new" protocol is _not_ IKEv2. However, the following text continues to speak of "invoking IKEv2", which would seem to me to imply "invoking unmodified IKEv2". However, unmodified IKEv2 has the wrong semantics for what happens to a child SA when the parent IKEv2 SA is destroyed. I suspect that what is really happening here is that draft-mahesh-karp-rkmp is defining _extensions_ to IKEv2, and new semantics for child SAs when those extensions are used. The material in Section 6 seems to support this view. If this is so, then I suggest that Section 1 needs to be lightly re-written to make it clear that the document is proposing extensions to IKEv2, and that references to "IKEv2" in the subsequent text are references to the extended IKEv2. Comments from the authors (and anyone else) will be appreciated. I need to understand what is actually intended here before I can comment properly on the rest of the document. Bill -- Dr. J.W. Atwood, Eng. tel: +1 (514) 848-2424 x3046 Distinguished Professor Emeritus fax: +1 (514) 848-2830 Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering Concordia University EV 3.185 email:william.atwood@concordia.ca 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West http://users.encs.concordia.ca/~bill Montreal, Quebec Canada H3G 1M8