Subject: Some doubts on latest IKEv2 draft

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 13:27:37 -0500

My apologies if this has already been discussed before....
	For some of us following the mailing list closely on a daily basis is
	a luxury we can not afford. I have tried to read several threads of the
	last month or so. I could find some answers, shall need confirmation
	on those and answers to some unanswered ones.

	* Initially the only way of authentication was signatures, then shared secrets
	  were added. Still authentication method was not negotiated, as both
	  end points can be doing different authentication. The question is then how does
	  the other side know of the authentication method being used by this side? 

	  The answer I found was that it shall be known by the key type which can be
	  indicated in the Certificate payload.
	
	  For different types of signatures it makes sense and Cert payload needs to 
	  be a MUST then. 
	  If Cert payload is not there, does the other side assume that authentication 
	  method is shared secret?

	* For CREATE_CHILD_SA exchange (Section 3.3), it is mentioned:

	  "The message past the header is encrypted and the message including the 
                header is integrity protected using the cryptographic algorithm negotiated 
	    in Phase 1."

	  But I do not see mention of any AUTH payload in the CREATE_CHILD_SA 
              exchange messages.

	* In the initial exchange the 3rd message, the initiator can optionally send IDr,
	  the responders's identity. How does the initiator come to know of the responder's
	  identity when it was not conveyed to the initiator in the second message? (Or is
	  it derived from the remote entity initiator tries to communicate with, which in turn
	  triggers IKE negotiation and hence IDr can be generated by the initiator)

	  Rationale behind IDr in message 3 was explained in version 3, but is not there 
              in the latest document. The question how IDr would be gotten would still be a
	  valid one. It will be good if some explanation on this is provided.

	* Somebody has mentioned this already that while IKEv1 had a separate section 
	  on notation and terminology, it is missing from IKEv2, which can be disconcerting
	  while reading the document.

Thanks,
Atul

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are not those of my employer (And as Charlie says
	 not even mine by the time you read it.)