Subject: Re: [MSEC] Questions: Relation among GSAKMP, GDOI and other Documents

From: Ran Canetti <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 15:31:48 -0400

A belated remark on this thread: As the GDOI document says, there is nothing 
in GDOI that ties it exclusively to IKEv1. Indeed, once IKEv2 is stable,
it should be quite straightforward to write a "GDOIv2" document which describes 
how GDOI can make use of IKEv2. Potentially, the GDOI phase 2 can be piggybacked
on the last two messagges of phase 1 (as is done in IKEv2); this would
reduce the round complexity of "GDOIv2" to the round complexity of IKEv2,
which is 4/6 messages, depending on whether dos protection is on.

Hopefully we can find a volunteer with enough energy to write this up. 

Ran

_______________________________________________
msec mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/msec

---

From: Lakshminath Dondeti <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2003 20:16:46 -0400

I agree with you Ran.  I also think that we should follow IKEv2's model 
and piggyback the GDOI Child SAs (Rekey and Data Security SAs) on to the 
last two messages of an IKEv2 exchange.  And, I am sure we can find a 
volunteer to write GDOIv2 :-).

regards,
Lakshminath

---

From: Mark Baugher <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 09:18:06 -0700

hi,

>volunteer to write GDOIv2 :-).

well, the volunteer(s) will need to have an IKEv2 implementation and be 
able to extend it with GDOIv2.

cheers, Mark

>regards,
>Lakshminath
>
>Ran Canetti wrote:
>>A belated remark on this thread: As the GDOI document says, there is 
>>nothing in GDOI that ties it exclusively to IKEv1. Indeed, once IKEv2 is 
>>stable,
>>it should be quite straightforward to write a "GDOIv2" document which 
>>describes how GDOI can make use of IKEv2. Potentially, the GDOI phase 2 
>>can be piggybacked

---

From: Lakshminath Dondeti <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 13:18:29 -0400

Agreed :-)!

Lakshminath

Mark Baugher wrote:
>> I agree with you Ran.  I also think that we should follow IKEv2's 
>> model and piggyback the GDOI Child SAs (Rekey and Data Security SAs) 
>> on to the last two messages of an IKEv2 exchange.  And, I am sure we 
>> can find a volunteer to write GDOIv2 :-).
> 
> 
>>> nothing in GDOI that ties it exclusively to IKEv1. Indeed, once IKEv2 
>>> is stable,
>>> describes how GDOI can make use of IKEv2. Potentially, the GDOI phase 
>>> 2 can be piggybacked

---

From: "Subrata Goswami" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 10:51:52 -0700

Q1. In Section 1.0, should the first sentences of choices A and B need
to be swapped ?

Q2. Authentication and Integrity. The difference from unicast arises
primarily because SA's can be shared, hence authentication and integrity
needs to performed separately. Disallowing SA sharing would eliminate
this problem.

Q3. Anti-reply protection: It seems to me that the sequence number is
source dependant, so adding the source address bits to sequence counter
bits should uniquely identify the particular sequence (even when SA's
are shared).

Q4. Scant resource devices. Here the argument is that these devices may
not have enough resources to store multiple source specific SA's.  An
alternative would be to allow only one source to multicast to these
devices.