Subject: Re: [Int-area] draft-learmonth-intarea-rfc1226-bis-00

From: Derek Fawcus <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 10:13:53 +0100

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 08:16:31PM +0100, Iain R. Learmonth wrote:
> 
> I do not want to forbid the use of non-NULL encryption. This phrasing
> may also be misleading as RFC4543 also provides encryption transforms
> that do not provide confidentiality. Instead of talking about NULL
> specifically, this could be changed to require use of a transform that
> does not provide confidentiality.

Given the general 'no encryption' rule for HAM transmissions, how about
making use of WESP (RFC 5840) when traversing an amateur RF link,
and ESP when going over other links with non-NULL encryption?

That would then explicitly signal that the payload is not encrypted,  and
allow for easy non heuristic based extraction of the payload.

DF

---

From: "Iain R. Learmonth" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 11:18:56 +0100

Hi Derek,

> and ESP when going over other links with non-NULL encryption?

I did not know about WESP, thank you for pointing it out.

Do you know of any software that currently implements WESP? To maximize
interoperability I'd like to only recommend the use of features that are
currently available.

Thanks,
Iain.

-- 
https://hambsd.org/

---

From: Derek Fawcus <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 11:30:39 +0100

On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 11:18:56AM +0100, Iain R. Learmonth wrote:
> Do you know of any software that currently implements WESP?

That I have no idea about.  I happened to stumble upon it recently
while chasing down extension header parsing scenarios in the context
of IPv4.

> To maximize interoperability I'd like to only recommend the use of
> features that are currently available.

Though it looks like it may be possible to implement is as a BITW, with
the bumps themselves doing the heuristic guessing.  So the RF endpoints
could do the work, and drop anything which the heuristics can't match.
A bit nasty unless those endpoints are also tunneling.

DF