Hello folks,
Where I work, it's easier for people to understand the value of
contributing an Internet Draft, compared to the value of contributing to
a mailing list. So I'll make an Internet Draft and explain on the
mailing list where it would fit in the current AODVv2 draft if inclusion
is desired.
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 3/3/2016 7:53 AM, Victoria Mercieca wrote:
Hi Charlie,
I think this just needs to go straight to MANET, and if they approve, or make suggestions etc, then when we reach consensus on it, we can incorporate it. It needs their opinion soon though. I'm happy for you to email straight to MANET to get discussion going.
Regards,
Vicky.
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Charlie Perkins <charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hello Vicky,
No worries, I'll post my text to the [manet] list and you can
incorporate it into the draft. Or perhaps better I'll post it
here for your feedback before posting it to the list.
Yes the transitive trust model has well-known problems for large
node populations, but these are not new problems and we had been
going along with that trust model for a long time.
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 3/3/2016 7:43 AM, Victoria Mercieca wrote:
I thought with all the disapproval of the current transitive
trust model, this would go some way to resolving that, and
therefore would be part of the main draft?
Kind regards,
Vicky.
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Charlie Perkins
<charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hello Vicky,
I wrote it as a new draft because it's a new feature that was
never part of the protocol before, and indeed never really
requested until recently.
But on the other hand the reason I asked a question to this
list was so that I could get your feedback...
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 3/3/2016 7:35 AM, Victoria Mercieca wrote:
Hi Charlie,
Why a new draft? Just email it as discussion and ask for
feedback?
Kind regards,
Vicky
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Charlie Perkins
<charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hello Vicky,
Thanks for following up. I'll try to get this draft out
today, and I will resume working on it now.
Should it be a separate draft, or incorporated into the
text of AODVv2? I've been writing it up as a separate
draft in order to reduce the impact on the base draft,
but it could go either way.
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 3/3/2016 2:30 AM, Victoria Mercieca wrote:
Agreed,
Just to add a little maybe, before you do...
Since OrigAddr, TargAddr, both prefixlengths, any
seqnums, and metric type, will be (should be, if not be
tampered with!) the same in every regenerated version
of the message, an ICV could be calculated over these
fields. This block of information could be classed as
the "message" which will be forwarded, although there
will also be some extra info that may change at
intermediate hops, i.e. metric, validity time and ackreq.
By forwarding that chunk unchanged with ICV from the
originator, we can be sure that all intermediate
routers have received a message which originated from a
trusted router, and therefore the route via the
intermediate router can be trusted, even if we dont
have a security association with this intermediate router.
However, the RFC5444 message would still differ at each
hop (Metric, validity time, ackreq)...so I don't know
if that defeats the purpose...its still not
forwarded....but it's not a total regeneration either.....
Also, metrics are very important in route decisions and
could still be manipulated since not protected by ICV.
Definitely get this discussion on MANET sooner rather
than later though. Thanks Charlie!
Kind regards,
Vicky.
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 10:06 PM, John Dowdell
<john.dowdell486@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:john.dowdell486@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Charlie
I similarly award you a large helping of encouragement!
Regards
John
> On 2 Mar 2016, at 17:02, Ratliff, Stanley
<sratliff@xxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:sratliff@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> Charlie,
>
> I encourage you to write that up, and post to the
MANET list.
>
> Regards,
> Stan
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: aodvv2-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:aodvv2-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:aodvv2-discuss- ;<mailto:aodvv2-discuss->
>> bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>] On Behalf Of Charlie
Perkins
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 11:59 AM
>> To: aodvv2-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:aodvv2-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: [aodvv2-discuss] End to end security model
>>
>>
>> Hello folks,
>>
>> It would be simple enough to make some sort of
end-to-end security with
>> positive effects. Not a cure-all, of course,
but perhaps worthwhile.
>>
>> Suppose that OrigNode and TargNode share a
security association. Then:
>> a) OrigNode could include a signature as one of
the RFC 5444 TLVs in the
>> RREQ, calculated including its sequence number
>> b) TargNode could do the same in the RREP.
>>
>> This would at least assure each node that they
were in communication with a
>> real partner, even if there were compromised
intermediate nodes.
>>
>> With a small bit of encouragement, I will write
this up and submit it
>> straightaway. It does not need to include the
method by which the security
>> association is established.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Charlie P.
>>
>>
>
>
> _____________________________________________________
> This electronic message and any files transmitted
with it contains
> information from iDirect, which may be
privileged, proprietary
> and/or confidential. It is intended solely for
the use of the individual
> or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are
not the original
> recipient or the person responsible for
delivering the email to the
> intended recipient, be advised that you have
received this email
> in error, and that any use, dissemination,
forwarding, printing, or
> copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email
> in error, please delete it and immediately notify
the sender.
> _____________________________________________________
