Subject: [Mipshop] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-cga-cba-01.txt

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:00:01 -0700

Hello,

this is a two week working group last call for
draft-ietf-mipshop-cga-cba-01.txt. you can find
the document at the following URL.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mipshop-cga-cba-01.txt

the last call expires on Oct 16 2006.

please post any issues or comments on this
document to the MIPSHOP WG mailing list. in case
you have reviewed the document and found no
issues, please send an email saying you support
advancing this document.

Vijay

_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 16:30:28 -0700

I briefly reviewed this draft. I think it looks fine, however, I found the 
mass of text in Section 4 somewhat difficult to follow in the absence of a 
protocol "ladder" diagram showing what messages go where and when. I believe 
readability would be improved by such a diagram.

            jak

---

From: "CAO, ZHEN" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:17:01 +0800

Hi everybody,

In section 3 Protocol Design:
<snip>
   Semi-permanent security associations

      Cryptographically generated addresses involve public-key
      cryptography and are computationally inefficient to validate.
<snip>

IMO, cryptographically generated address generation and verification does
not need any public-key cryptographical computation (only hash computation).
Only when the CGA signature is used will the public-key cryptography be
involved. I think the sentence here refers to the CGA signature or implys
that any CGA should be used with a private key signature. But unfortunately
it is not clear enough in the document.

Many thanks,
Zhen

---

From: Christian Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:55:35 +0200

Hi James,

many thanks for reviewing the document.  One, or rather a couple of
protocol diagrams should indeed be added to section 4.  This would also
further clarify the difference between the two authentication methods
(with or without CGA-based HoA), as well as the difference between using
an initial early Binding Update message (without CoA verification) or
not using it.

Regards,
- Christian

-- 
Christian Vogt, Institute of Telematics, Universitaet Karlsruhe (TH)
www.tm.uka.de/~chvogt/pubkey/

---

From: Christian Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:55:35 +0200

Hi James,

Regards,
- Christian

---

From: Christian Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:56:18 +0200

Hi Zhen,

thanks for pointing this out.  You are right in that the paragraph may
be confusing.

Note, however, that a CGA is not fully verified unless the signature is
checked.  Simply recomputing the hash solely confirms that the CGA
originates from a given public key.  The interesting part is to whom
that public key really belongs.

Nonetheless, this will be clarified.

- Christian

CAO, ZHEN wrote:
> IMO, cryptographically generated address generation and verification
> does not need any public-key cryptographical computation (only hash
> computation). Only when the CGA signature is used will the public-key
> cryptography be involved. I think the sentence here refers to the CGA
> signature or implys that any CGA should be used with a private key
> signature. But unfortunately it is not clear enough in the document.
>  
> Many thanks,
> Zhen

])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GXKu2-0007yt-Kj
	for [email-masked]; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 12:56:27 -0400
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:56:18 +0200
From: Christian Vogt <[email-masked]>
To: "CAO, ZHEN" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Mipshop] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-cga-cba-01.txt
Cc: Wassim Haddad <[email-masked]>, [email-masked],
	Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>

Hi Zhen,

thanks for pointing this out.  You are right in that the paragraph may
be confusing.

Note, however, that a CGA is not fully verified unless the signature is
checked.  Simply recomputing the hash solely confirms that the CGA
originates from a given public key.  The interesting part is to whom
that public key really belongs.

Nonetheless, this will be clarified.

- Christian

CAO, ZHEN wrote:
> IMO, cryptographically generated address generation and verification
> does not need any public-key cryptographical computation (only hash
> computation). Only when the CGA signature is used will the public-key
> cryptography be involved. I think the sentence here refers to the CGA
> signature or implys that any CGA should be used with a private key
> signature. But unfortunately it is not clear enough in the document.
>  
> Many thanks,
> Zhen

---

From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:47:10 -0700

All,
Given that the 00 draft deadline coincides with this LC deadline, I
won't be able to review the revised draft in time. I will try to provide
some comments soon after or during IETF LC. 

Thanks,
Vidya

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vijay Devarapalli [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 5:00 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Mipshop] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-cga-cba-01.txt
> 
> Hello,
> 
> draft-ietf-mipshop-cga-cba-01.txt. you can find the document 
> at the following URL.
> 
> please post any issues or comments on this document to the 
> MIPSHOP WG mailing list. in case you have reviewed the 
> document and found no issues, please send an email saying you 
> support advancing this document.
> 
> Vijay
>

---

From: Christian Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:08:08 +0200

Hi Vidya,

thanks for the note.  It's no problem if you send your comments a bit later.

Kind regards,
- Christian