Subject: [karp] Algorithms to Support?

From: Venkatesh Sriram <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 22:22:52 +0530

Morning KARPers,

I was reading RFC 5310 (ISIS Generic Cryptographic Authentication) and
comparing it with RFC 5709 (OSPF HMAC-SHA authentication) . Both deal
with similar ideas and add support for SHS family of authentication
algorithms for ISIS and OSPF. However, while the latter RFC is very
clear on what algorithm (hmac-sha-1/256/512) MUST and SHOULD be
implemented, there is no clear indication in RFC 5310 on what kind of
algorithms MUST and SHOULD be implemented for ISIS. Can we have some
clarity there? I would wager that  KARP is indeed the right forum to
address such issues.

I would believe that the set of algorithms for authenticating OSPF and
ISIS should be similar and see no reason that while HMAC-SHA-256 is
recommended for OSPF, there is none mandated or recommended for ISIS.

Sriram

---

From: Venkatesh Sriram <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 22:27:17 +0530

.. Include RFC4822 - "RIPv2 Cryptographic Authentication" too in the list.

Sriram

---

From: Christopher Morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 11:59:20 -0500

> recommended for OSPF, there is none mandated or recommended for ISIS.

as a question... are you asking that someone put in a 'must' list?
Should KARP work toward defining that list? or defining the state
where 'a list' can be used, and 'that list can change as future
requirements/algoritms arise'?

I see that: "There should be a list, as a starter, and that list will
be changing. plan accordingly.' is important. I'm not sure that 'the
list' is the important part here. (to me at least)

-chris

---

From: Venkatesh Sriram <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 22:50:57 +0530

Chris,

> requirements/algoritms arise'?

The list will be dynamic and will obviously change with time as new
algorithms come and the older ones get deprecated. KARP must develop
protocols keeping this flux in mind.

Additionally, we must also have this list somewhere. This could either
be maintained by the individual WGs (RIP, ISIS, OSPF, etc) or we could
have one WG that keeps track of this.

Sriram

---

From: Christopher Morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 12:49:33 -0500

> protocols keeping this flux in mind.

good.

> have one WG that keeps track of this.

I favor the one-ring approach...

---

From: Venkatesh Sriram <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 23:31:07 +0530

> I favor the one-ring approach...

Same here, which is why i posted this in KARP.

Is this then a candidate for addition to the charter?

Sriram