Hi Derek,

> Having encryption params within the scheme being renegotiated seems likely, 
> but not
> changing the scheme,  as such I can't see the need to preclude reuse of the 
> option
> values for per scheme use once the scheme is selected.  The actual use I was 
> expecting
> was that the per scheme renegotiation would/could use those values for 
> negotiating
> new keys, or other per-scheme values.

Hmm - looks like I may have misread this text last night as releasing the 
option for arbitrary
usage.  I suppose what is there is ok, but I'd prefer to see another option 
kind allocated for
encryption spec usage (if we anticipate that being needed) rather than 
overloading the
TCP-ENO option kind.

Thanks, --David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tcpinc [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Derek Fawcus
> Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 2:29 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [tcpinc] TCP-ENO: David Black's review
> 
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:17:05AM +0000, Black, David wrote:
> >  [G] Section 4.2 - NO, don't do this!   The option kind will be assigned to 
> > TCP-
> ENO by
> > IANA, and allowing this class of reuse:
> >     a) almost certainly violates the rules for the registry from which that 
> > kind
> >             value is assigned.
> >     b) prematurely closes off opportunities to use the option after the 
> > initial
> >             handshake (e.g., possibly for encryption renegotiation).
> 
> Actually,  that section (4.2) struck me as reasonable.
> 
> Ignoring 'a' for the moment,  and looking at 'b':  the whole point of this 
> mechanism
> is to pick / negotiate an encryption scheme.  Once picked for a given TCP 
> connection
> I can't really see the scheme being changed (i.e. between tcpcrypt and 
> use-tls).
> 
> Having encryption params within the scheme being renegotiated seems likely,
> but not
> changing the scheme,  as such I can't see the need to preclude reuse of the
> option
> values for per scheme use once the scheme is selected.  The actual use I was
> expecting
> was that the per scheme renegotiation would/could use those values for
> negotiating
> new keys, or other per-scheme values.
> 
> DF
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tcpinc mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc

_______________________________________________
Tcpinc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc

Reply via email to