Kevin, If SPC-4 were headed to Letter Ballot in the near future, I would support your position 100%, but such is not the case. Working drafts are always works in progress, and I feel that having a good SA definition in SPC-4 will encourage those who know the ropes better than I to bring in the needed HOW TO proposals. Since they no longer have to jump through the hoops needed to define WHAT, they have less work to do and that should lower whatever hurdles are keeping them from coming forward. As for the matter of vendor specific solutions ... I must note two things: a) SA definition are totally internal to SCSI devices, and b) There already are 16 VS codes in SECURITY PROTOCOL IN/OUT. Surely any suitably determined organization can define VS SAs till the cows come home, even if 06-369rx is never incorporated in SPC-4. All the best, .Ralph
Kevin D Butt wrote:

Ralph,

I already sent this note to you offline, but now I wish to send it slightly modified for all to see.
This proposal adds definitions but does nothing to specify HOW to create an SA. With the WHAT but without the HOW TO create portion, I fear this will push vendors to implement before the HOW TO is defined. This may tend to push for vendor specific methods to create an SA without having a standard method defined. This will defeat the purpose of having a standard. IBM Tape is strongly opposed to voting for something that is incomplete and begs for vendor-specific solutions because there is no standard method to do something that is described. We believe that the HOW TO needs to be added in before this should be allowed into the standards.

Thanks,

Kevin D. Butt
SCSI & Fibre Channel Architect, Tape Firmware
MS 6TYA, 9000 S. Rita Rd., Tucson, AZ 85744
Tel: 520-799-2869 / 520-799-5280
Fax: 520-799-2723 (T/L:321)
Email address: kdbutt@us.ibm.com
http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/storage/

Ralph Weber <roweber@ieee.org>
Sent by: owner-t10@t10.org
08/26/2006 09:36 AM

To
t10@t10.org

cc

Subject
Re: comment on 06-369r2 -- Security Association Model for SPC-4

For my part, I fail to see how an SA can be established until there is a definition of what an SA is. I consider the SA definition so fundamental that having the definition phrased in traditional SCSI terms is critical to me. This is why (as SPC-4 editor) I am working on 06-369rx. While it seems simpler to have the SA definition in a working draft for easy reference by those writing SA creation proposals (and there might be two of these coming, one for authenticated SAs and one for unauthenticated SAs), if the majority of CAP sees things differently, I will of course abide by that decision. I still plan to press for a vote on 06-369. All the best, .Ralph

Gideon Avida wrote:
* From the T10 Reflector (t10@t10.org), posted by: * "Gideon Avida"<gideon@decru.com>* While I understand the motivation behind proposal 06-369, I don't think Decru can vote for it for similar reasons voiced against proposal 06-225 in Colorado Springs. From the SSC-3 minutes: "Kevin Butt from IBM raised the issue that this proposal relies on an already established security association. It is the foundation for this key wrapping and we are opposed to this without a method in SCSI defined to create a Security Association." On a related topic, Decru would like to propose the use of public key cryptography as an alternative means for securing data encrypting keys. Due to time constraints between the meetings, I only have a rough overview that I'd like to discuss in Nashua (it's currently submitted to the SSC-3 agenda). Please seehttp://www.t10.org/ftp/t10/document.06/06-389r0.pdf. If there is interest in this approach, I will flesh out the details of the proposal by the Las Vegas meeting. Thanks, Gideon -----Original Message----- From:owner-t10@t10.org[mailto:owner-t10@t10.org] On Behalf OfBlack_David@emc.comSent: Friday, August 25, 2006 2:49 PM To:Gerry.Houlder@seagate.com;t10@t10.orgSubject: RE: comment on 06-369r2 -- Security Association Model for SPC-4 * From the T10 Reflector (t10@t10.org), posted by: *Black_David@emc.com* Gerry,
It is also unclear if this security association method is required for
all
"security protocols" supported in SECURITY PROTOCOL IN/ OUT commands
or
just the tape protocol (which is the only one described in SPC-4 at
the
moment).
The function of the proposed security association abstraction is to separate generation of symmetric cryptographic keys from use of those keys in order to enable mix/match of security mechanisms across that boundary (separation of key generation from key usage). If a "security protocol" does not generate keys for use in other SCSI functionality, it can ignore the whole concept of a security association. The tape protocol is going to specify a means of encrypting encryption keys in order to transfer them securely to tape devices that have onboard encryption - to do so, the protocol needs to use another key. This may sound recursive (need a second key to protect first key, how is the second key protected?), but fortunately, the recursion ends with what is called a "key exchange protocol" that generates a shared secret from non-secret communication exchanges plus some mathematics. One of the reasons for putting forward security association text now is that there is a possibility that SSC-3 will want to specify multiple key exchange protocols, and a structure in which multiple such protocols can co-exist cleanly is important to avoid chaos. Thanks, --David ---------------------------------------------------- David L. Black, Senior Technologist EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786black_david@emc.com Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 ----------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message----- From:owner-t10@t10.org[mailto:owner-t10@t10.org] On Behalf OfGerry.Houlder@seagate.comSent: Friday, August 25, 2006 3:44 PM To:t10@t10.orgSubject: comment on 06-369r2 -- Security Association Model for SPC-4 * From the T10 Reflector (t10@t10.org), posted by: *Gerry.Houlder@seagate.com* While reading through the new section 5.13, I thought the information
was
not organized in the best order for understanding. 5.13.1 and 5.13.2 introduce tables without describing what they are for. Clause 5.13.3 finally starts defining a "security association" and what it is used
for.
This should become the first clause in 5.13 because it provides a
basis for
understanding the stuff in the other clauses. It is also unclear if this security association method is required for
all
"security protocols" supported in SECURITY PROTOCOL IN/ OUT commands
or
just the tape protocol (which is the only one described in SPC-4 at
the
moment). I would like to see a more generic model that starts with material
from
5.13.1,5.13.3, and 5.13.4; then moves on to describe the choices made
for
the minimum SA parameters, etc. for the tape protocol. It should also
state
that the tape protocol details do not necessarily apply to protocols
that
reference other documents for their description. * * For T10 Reflector information, send a message with * 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body tomajordomo@t10.org
* * For T10 Reflector information, send a message with * 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body tomajordomo@t10.org* * For T10 Reflector information, send a message with * 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body tomajordomo@t10.org