Hi Paul,

> So here is my first pass:
> 
> Abstract:
> 
> Current:
> 
>     A client can reconnect to a gateway from which it was disconnected.
> 
> New:
> 
>     A client can reconnect to a gateway from which it was disconnected,
>     due to a network issue between the client and server.

I don't like this change - it's too narrow and only talks about network issue. 
The disconnection can also be a result switching off power on a CPE,
or rebooting the device.

> Section 6.2:
> 
> Current:
> 
>     Each ticket is associated with a single IKE SA.  In particular, when
>     an IKE SA is deleted by the client or the gateway, the client MUST
>     delete its stored ticket.  Similarly, when credentials associated
>     with the IKE SA are invalidated (e.g., when a user logs out), the
>     ticket MUST be deleted.
> 
> New:
> 
>     Each ticket is associated with a single IKE SA.  In particular,
>     when an IKE SA is deleted by administrative actions initiated by
>     the client or due to the client receiving a Delete Notification from
>     the gateway, the client MUST delete its stored ticket.  Similarly,
>     when credentials associated with the IKE SA are invalidated (e.g.,
>     when a user logs out), the ticket MUST be deleted. 
>     When the client  deletes the IKE SA due to a failed liveness probe, the 
> client

The following text:

>     MUST NOT send Delete Notifications and 

is unnecessary and technically incorrect, because if there is no connectivity
(as turned out after liveness probe failed), the client _cannot_ send any 
message to the server.
Please, remove it.

>     SHOULD keep the ticket to allow
>     it to attempt a Session Resumption Exchange when the network outage
>     has cleared.
>
> Section 9.8:
> 
> Current:
> 
>     A misbehaving client could present a ticket in its possession to the
>     gateway resulting in session resumption, even though the IKE SA
>     associated with this ticket had previously been deleted. This is
>     disallowed by Section 6.2.
> 
> New:
> 
>     A misbehaving client could present a ticket in its possession to
>     the gateway resulting in session resumption, even though the IKE
>     SA associated with this ticket had been terminated by the client
>     or server during regular operations that included processing Delete
>     Notifications. This is disallowed by Section 6.2. Note that during an
>     outage, deletion of the IKE SA that is the result of failed liveness
>     probes MUST NOT invalidate the ticket for resumption, as this behaviour
>     is expected to occur during a network outage. 

Again, the network outage is not the only reason for deleting SAs - 
switching off power or rebooting the device can also occur.

>      Invalidating the ticket
>     due to a liveness failure would make session resumption impossible.

I think this clarification is not necessary. 

> I am confused a bit about 4.3.1:
> 
> Current:
> 
>       a client MUST NOT reuse a ticket.  A reused ticket SHOULD be rejected 
> by a gateway.
> 
> Why is there a SHOULD and not a MUST NOT ? With the SHOULD I guess I can
> now ignore it (as we do in our implementation currently). We could
> clarify here that the timing interactions of ike lifetime, re-auth
> lifetime and ticket lifetime should prevent it from being used after
> the user credentials have expired, but I don't think it is really needed
> in the errata?

I guess that it's SHOULD, because if it were MUST, a stateless server 
implementation
would not be possible, even with ticket by value.

Regards,
Valery.

> This one is also a little tricky:
> 
>       Note 3:  If the certificate has an iPAddress SubjectAltName, and the
>              implementation requires it to match the peer's source IP
>              address, the same check needs to be performed on session
>              resumption and the required information saved locally or in
>              the ticket.
> 
> We need to update our implementation to add this ip restriction into the
> session ticket so we can compare it on resume without having the CERT.
> 
> Paul
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list
> IPsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec

_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec

Reply via email to