idnits 2.17.1 draft-mglt-nvo3-geneve-encryption-option-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There are 3 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 1 character in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document date (June 27, 2017) is 2494 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis' is defined on line 154, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve' is defined on line 167, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-tls-dtls13' is defined on line 172, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4302' is defined on line 188, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4868' is defined on line 192, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC6347' is defined on line 197, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-nvo3-encap' is defined on line 203, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'I-D.mglt-nvo3-geneve-security-architecture' is defined on line 209, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'I-D.mglt-nvo3-security-requirements' is defined on line 214, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC7364' is defined on line 219, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-16) exists of draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-04 == Outdated reference: A later version (-43) exists of draft-ietf-tls-dtls13-00 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6347 (Obsoleted by RFC 9147) == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of draft-ietf-nvo3-encap-00 -- No information found for draft-mglt-nvo3-security-requirements - is the name correct? -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 7539 (Obsoleted by RFC 8439) Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 15 warnings (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 NVO3 D. Migault 3 Internet-Draft June 27, 2017 4 Intended status: Standards Track 5 Expires: December 29, 2017 7 Geneve Header Encryption Option (GEO) 8 draft-mglt-nvo3-geneve-encryption-option-00 10 Abstract 12 This document describes the Geneve Encryption Option (GEO). This 13 option enables a Geneve forwarding element to encrypt the Geneve 14 Header with selected associated Geneve Options as well as a portion 15 of the Geneve Payload. 17 Status of This Memo 19 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 20 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 22 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 23 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 24 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 25 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 27 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 28 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 29 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 30 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 32 This Internet-Draft will expire on December 29, 2017. 34 Copyright Notice 36 Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 37 document authors. All rights reserved. 39 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 40 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 41 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 42 publication of this document. Please review these documents 43 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 44 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 45 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 46 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 47 described in the Simplified BSD License. 49 Table of Contents 51 1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 52 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 53 3. GEO Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 54 4. GEO Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 4.1. GEO Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 7. Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 62 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 64 1. Requirements notation 66 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 67 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 68 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 70 2. Introduction 72 3. GEO Description 74 For generic format of the Geneve Options is defined in Figure 1. The 75 following values are expected: 77 o Option Class: 0x0000 79 o Type: C is unset as the GEO can simply be ignored by a NVE or a 80 transit node. The GSP will prevent to accept a GOA that is 81 mandated by the GSP and that has not been validated. 83 o R is set to 0. 85 o Length: This document only considers the algorithms recommended by 86 [I-D.ietf-ipsecme-rfc7321bis] ENCR_AES_GCM_16 or 87 ENCR_CHACHA20_POLY1305. These algorithms are defined in [RFC4106] 88 and [RFC7539]. 90 0 1 2 91 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 92 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 93 | Option Class | Type |R|R|R| Length | 94 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 95 | Variable Option Data | 96 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 98 Figure 1: Geneve Option Format 100 0 1 2 101 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 102 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 103 | Sequence Number | 104 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 105 | GEO-ID | Covered Length | 106 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 107 | | 108 | ICV 128/256 bits 16 | 109 | | 110 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 112 Figure 2: Geneve Encryption Data 114 4. GEO Processing 116 4.1. GEO Placement 118 [ 120 Geneve Encryption Option -----+ 121 | 122 | Covered Length 123 <-------------------> v <--------------------> 124 +---------------------+-------------+-----+------------+----------------+ 125 | Geneve Fixed Header | Geneve Opt. | GEO | Geneve Opt.| Geneve Payload | 126 +---------------------+-------------+-----+------------+----------------+ 127 <--------+----------> <---------+-------> <----------+---------> <-+--> 128 | | xxxx encrypted xxxxx 129 | | | | 130 +-------------------------------------------+ | 131 Fields covered | | 132 by the encryption +----------------------------------+ 133 Fields not covered 134 by the encryption 136 Figure 3: Geneve Encryption Options Placement 138 GEO is a termination Geneve Option. The encrypted Geneve Options and 139 portion of the encrypted Geneve Payload are appended to the Geneve 140 Header. They are not encoded as an Geneve Option. 142 5. IANA Considerations 144 There are no IANA consideration for this document. 146 6. Security Considerations 148 7. Acknowledgment 150 8. References 152 8.1. Normative References 154 [I-D.ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis] 155 Nir, Y., Kivinen, T., Wouters, P., and D. Migault, 156 "Algorithm Implementation Requirements and Usage Guidance 157 for IKEv2", draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis-18 (work in 158 progress), March 2017. 160 [I-D.ietf-ipsecme-rfc7321bis] 161 Wouters, P., Migault, D., Mattsson, J., Nir, Y., and T. 162 Kivinen, "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation 163 Requirements and Usage Guidance for Encapsulating Security 164 Payload (ESP) and Authentication Header (AH)", draft-ietf- 165 ipsecme-rfc7321bis-06 (work in progress), June 2017. 167 [I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve] 168 Gross, J., Ganga, I., and T. Sridhar, "Geneve: Generic 169 Network Virtualization Encapsulation", draft-ietf- 170 nvo3-geneve-04 (work in progress), March 2017. 172 [I-D.ietf-tls-dtls13] 173 Rescorla, E., Tschofenig, H., and N. Modadugu, "The 174 Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Protocol Version 175 1.3", draft-ietf-tls-dtls13-00 (work in progress), April 176 2017. 178 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 179 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 180 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 181 . 183 [RFC4106] Viega, J. and D. McGrew, "The Use of Galois/Counter Mode 184 (GCM) in IPsec Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", 185 RFC 4106, DOI 10.17487/RFC4106, June 2005, 186 . 188 [RFC4302] Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302, 189 DOI 10.17487/RFC4302, December 2005, 190 . 192 [RFC4868] Kelly, S. and S. Frankel, "Using HMAC-SHA-256, HMAC-SHA- 193 384, and HMAC-SHA-512 with IPsec", RFC 4868, 194 DOI 10.17487/RFC4868, May 2007, 195 . 197 [RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer 198 Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347, 199 January 2012, . 201 8.2. Informative References 203 [I-D.ietf-nvo3-encap] 204 Boutros, S., Ganga, I., Garg, P., Manur, R., Mizrahi, T., 205 Mozes, D., and E. Nordmark, "NVO3 Encapsulation 206 Considerations", draft-ietf-nvo3-encap-00 (work in 207 progress), June 2017. 209 [I-D.mglt-nvo3-geneve-security-architecture] 210 Migault, D., "Geneve Security Architecture", July 2017, 211 . 214 [I-D.mglt-nvo3-security-requirements] 215 Migault, D., "Geneve Security Requirements", July 2017, 216 . 219 [RFC7364] Narten, T., Ed., Gray, E., Ed., Black, D., Fang, L., 220 Kreeger, L., and M. Napierala, "Problem Statement: 221 Overlays for Network Virtualization", RFC 7364, 222 DOI 10.17487/RFC7364, October 2014, 223 . 225 [RFC7539] Nir, Y. and A. Langley, "ChaCha20 and Poly1305 for IETF 226 Protocols", RFC 7539, DOI 10.17487/RFC7539, May 2015, 227 . 229 Author's Address 231 Daniel Migault 233 Email: daniel.migault@ericsson.com