[anonsec] details of IKE/IPsec channel binding

[Tero Kivinen]

Nicolas Williams writes:
> IKEv1 is certainly not obsoleted.

All obsoleted:

2401 Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol. S. Kent, R.
     Atkinson. November 1998. (Format: TXT=168162 bytes) (Obsoletes
     RFC1825) (Obsoleted by RFC4301) (Updated by RFC3168) (Status:
     PROPOSED STANDARD)

2402 IP Authentication Header. S. Kent, R. Atkinson. November 1998.
     (Format: TXT=52831 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC1826) (Obsoleted by
     RFC4302,
     RFC4305) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)

2406 IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP). S. Kent, R. Atkinson.
     November 1998. (Format: TXT=54202 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC1827)
     (Obsoleted by RFC4303, RFC4305) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)

2407 The Internet IP Security Domain of Interpretation for ISAKMP. D.
     Piper. November 1998. (Format: TXT=67878 bytes) (Obsoleted by
     RFC4306) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)

2408 Internet Security Association and Key Management Protocol
     (ISAKMP). D. Maughan, M. Schertler, M. Schneider, J. Turner. November
     1998. (Format: TXT=209175 bytes) (Obsoleted by RFC4306) (Status:
     PROPOSED STANDARD)

2409 The Internet Key Exchange (IKE). D. Harkins, D. Carrel. November
     1998. (Format: TXT=94949 bytes) (Obsoleted by RFC4306) (Updated by
     RFC4109) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)

> And RFC4301 does support IKEv1, does
> it not?

>From RFC4301:

   Note: This document mandates support for several features for which
   support is available in IKEv2 but not in IKEv1, e.g., negotiation of
   an SA representing ranges of local and remote ports or negotiation of
   multiple SAs with the same selectors.  Therefore, this document
   assumes use of IKEv2 or a key and security association management
   system with comparable features.

> First I'd like to be convinced that the IKE_SA expiration in the middle
> of channel setup is no big deal.  That is, I'd like to see consensus on
> this.

I need to think about this more before making my mind for this. My
initial feeling do say that we should bind it to the IKE
authentication, i.e. the to the Diffie-Hellman exchange. 

> And I'd like input from our AD about whether we need to support
> IKEv1.

Me too...
-- 
kivinen at safenet-inc.com