Cryptographic Protection of TCP Streams (tcpcrypt)
RFC 8548

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.

(Ben Campbell) Yes

Comment (2017-11-10 for -09)
No email
send info
In section 3.3, the last bullet: Why are the SHOULDs not MUSTs? Do you envision times where it might make sense not refresh an ephemeral public key, or write one to persistent storage?

(Spencer Dawkins) Yes

Comment (2017-10-25 for -08)
No email
send info
I really like this draft, and I can understand it fairly well. I do have some questions to go along with my Yes ballot.


  o  "PK_A", "PK_B": ephemeral public keys for hosts A and B,
      respectively.  These, as well as their corresponding private keys,
      are short-lived values that SHOULD be refreshed periodically.  The
      private keys SHOULD NOT ever be written to persistent storage.

is just begging for some justification as to why this is important enough to be a SHOULD NOT, and not important enough to be a MUST NOT. Could you give an example of a reason why this would be a good idea?

It's likely that everyone but me knows why 

                resume[i] = CPRF(ss[i], CONST_RESUME, 18)

is "18" and not some other integer, but there's no explanation or reference that I could find explaining why.

It would be helpful to explain why

  In a particular SYN segment, a host SHOULD NOT send more than one
   resumption suboption,

is a SHOULD NOT, since it's allowed, so doing so must have some purpose.


  A host SHOULD NOT initiate more than one concurrent re-key operation
   if it has no data to send; that is, it should not initiate re-keying
   with an empty encryption frame more than once while its record of the
   remote generation number is less than its own.

is allowed - could you explain why a host would need to violate that SHOULD NOT?

Just for my benefit - Section 8.3 explains why ECDHE using Curve25519 has been chosen as MTI, but also explains why ECDHE using P-256 has not been chosen as a second MTI. Is the intention to discourage use of ECDHE using P-256 at all, based on the concerns expressed about making it MTI? 

Also for my benefit, but somewhat more worrying - is the working group fairly confident that a specifying second MTI key management scheme will be possible at some point, that does not trip over the problems described in [nist-ecc] and can be implemented in kernels, or is conforming to the guidance in [RFC7696] going to be problematic? I see Mirja mentioned SEC discussions about only one MTI key management mechanism being chosen now, but my question is a little different - I'm asking if the situation is likely to improve anytime soon.

Mirja Kühlewind Yes

Comment (2017-10-23 for -08)
No email
send info
Based on comments received during IETF last cast, the latest version of this document (-08) now recommends a different AEAD algorithm as MIT. There is still some on-going  discussion with the SEC ADs if only one MIT is acceptable. There is consensus in the working group to move forward with only one but they are also open for other recommendations as feedback from the IESG evaluation.

Alexey Melnikov Yes

Comment (2017-11-29 for -10)
No email
send info
I am looking forward to seeing resolutions to Ekr's DISCUSS points.

(Kathleen Moriarty) Yes

Comment (2017-11-11 for -09)
No email
send info
Thank you for the discussion and agreement on the two points for additional (SHOULD) algorithms and your work on this draft and experiment.

I support Eric's discuss.

I'd also like to see Barry's SecDir review and the Steve Kent review he referenced discussed and resolved.
Barry's SecDir review:

Adam Roach Yes

Comment (2017-11-08 for -09)
No email
send info
Thanks for a well-written document. I have some suggestions for improvement (two minor, and one significant).

This document has several references to tables that are quite distant from the table being referenced. It might be useful to readers if these were phrased something like "Table 4 in section 7," so they know where to go looking for the table.

Section 3.5 says:

   If an active opener receives a resumption suboption for a particular
   TEP and the received identifier-half does not match the "resume[i]"
   value whose other half it previously sent in a resumption suboption
   for the same TEP, it MUST ignore that suboption.  In the typical case
   that this was the only ENO suboption received, this means the host
   MUST disable TCP-ENO and tcpcrypt: that is, it MUST NOT send any more
   ENO options and MUST NOT encrypt the connection.

I think the text here would benefit from pointing out that the client MUST NOT attempt to resume a session with this host for the next TCP connection attempt.


Section 3.6 stipulates:

   When a frame is received, tcpcrypt reconstructs the associated data
   and frame nonce values (the former contains only data sent in the
   clear, and the latter is implicit in the TCP stream), and provides
   these and the ciphertext value to the the AEAD decryption operation.
   The output of this operation is either a plaintext value "P" or the
   special symbol FAIL.  In the latter case, the implementation MUST
   either drop the TCP segment(s) containing the frame or abort the
   connection; but if it aborts, the implementation MUST raise an error
   condition distinct from the end-of-file condition.

In the text above, the choice to "drop the TCP segment(s)" seems a little underspecified, and both ways that I can interpret it are problematic.

In one interpretation, the TCP stack acts as if those packets were never received, and so they are never acknowledged. Since retransmissions will contain the same contents and also fail to decrypt, this is basically just going to cause a connection failure upon expiration of the retransmission timer -- in which case an immediate failure is clearly preferable.

The other interpretation is that the TCP packet is processed as received, but that all of the data that could not be decrypted is elided from the stream of bytes provided to the receiving application. This is also a problem, since many applications rely on the in-order delivery aspects of TCP. The prospect that a sender could provide "Message A", "Message B", and then"Message C" to its TCP socket and the receiver only get "Message A" followed immediately by "Message C" is not something that applications will generally be capable of handling. As before, a connection reset would be preferable to violating the in-order delivery guarantees of TCP.

Unless my analysis here is confused, I think this text needs to be changed to conclude:

   In the latter case, the implementation MUST
   abort the connection and raise an error
   condition distinct from the end-of-file condition.

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

Deborah Brungard No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

Comment (2017-11-10 for -09)
No email
send info
Nothing against the publication of this document but ... as for any experimental RFCs, we must describe the criteria for a successful experiment (evaluation)?

Alissa Cooper No Objection

Suresh Krishnan No Objection

(Terry Manderson) No Objection

(Eric Rescorla) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2018-12-24)
Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS

Alvaro Retana No Objection