> -----Original Message----- > From: IPsec <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Valery Smyslov > Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 10:21 AM > To: 'Paul Wouters' <[email protected]>; 'Tero Kivinen' <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [IPsec] IPsecME@IETF102 Montreal meeting minutes > > Hi Paul, > > > Valery: I like it. You outlined that <missed it>. Is it neceesary > for > > security? > > > > Scott: No, but I put it in there because <missed it>.
"I put it in there because we reused an existing key update mechanism, and as that mechanism used nonces, we included them" > > > > I believe this was about sending KE payloads for each exchange? And > > Scott > left > > it in because it kept the existing code/protocol intact? > > No, I asked why each new KE in IKE_AUX incorporates its own nonce, instead > of re-using nonces from IKE_SA_INIT. I have no problem with this if it is > needed for security, my question was driven by curiosity. I don't know if we really thought about it; the mechanism needed nonces, so we included them. We didn't really consider reusing previously exchanged nonces... If you ask my opinion, I think it's cleaner if we use fresh nonces; however I do not believe that there is any security difference. > > Regards, > Valery > > _______________________________________________ > IPsec mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
