Re: [Dime] Review of draft-ietf-dime-local-keytran-03

Sebastien Decugis <sdecugis@nict.go.jp> Tue, 18 May 2010 01:47 UTC

Return-Path: <sdecugis@nict.go.jp>
X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 327183A6BBB for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 May 2010 18:47:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.798
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.798 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.447, BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EVtL8L4IsZx9 for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 May 2010 18:47:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ns1.nict.go.jp (unknown [IPv6:2001:2f8:29::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13D7C3A6AF2 for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 May 2010 18:47:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gw1.nict.go.jp (gw1 [133.243.18.250]) by ns1.nict.go.jp with ESMTP id o4I1lfmK011007 for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 May 2010 10:47:41 +0900 (JST)
Received: from gw1.nict.go.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gw1.nict.go.jp with ESMTP id o4I1lfJk015898 for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 May 2010 10:47:41 +0900 (JST)
Received: from mail1.nict.go.jp (mail.nict.go.jp [133.243.18.3]) by gw1.nict.go.jp with ESMTP id o4I1lfQN015893 for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 May 2010 10:47:41 +0900 (JST)
Received: from mail1.nict.go.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail1.nict.go.jp (NICT Mail) with ESMTP id 754842C2EA for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 May 2010 10:47:41 +0900 (JST)
Received: from [133.243.146.171] (5gou2f-dhcp11.nict.go.jp [133.243.146.171]) by mail1.nict.go.jp (NICT Mail) with ESMTP id 703412C2DB for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 May 2010 10:47:41 +0900 (JST)
Message-ID: <4BF1F1B9.2050608@nict.go.jp>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 10:47:37 +0900
From: Sebastien Decugis <sdecugis@nict.go.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; fr; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dime@ietf.org
References: <AC1CFD94F59A264488DC2BEC3E890DE50A43AE83@xmb-sjc-225.amer.cisco.com> <00b701caedc5$92e4d150$b8ae73f0$@net> <AC1CFD94F59A264488DC2BEC3E890DE50A554125@xmb-sjc-225.amer.cisco.com> <000401caf25d$420b7d50$c62277f0$@net> <BLU0-SMTP1379FA02B7E014A72ABF23D8FC0@phx.gbl> <AC1CFD94F59A264488DC2BEC3E890DE50A554399@xmb-sjc-225.amer.cisco.com> <2BE3AA30-C1D6-41F1-9D6C-305DB8E1E867@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <2BE3AA30-C1D6-41F1-9D6C-305DB8E1E867@gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [Dime] Review of draft-ietf-dime-local-keytran-03
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 01:47:55 -0000

Hi,

Since the Key AVP's ABNF allows other AVPs anyway ( * [AVP ] ), it will
be easy to add the domain, should one encounter a situation where it is
not the same as the Orinigin-Realm of the message... So, I think is it
not a problem to not include the domain here.

My 2 cents,
Sebastien.

Le 18/05/2010 06:09, jouni korhonen a écrit :
> <chair mode>
> So, everybody happy with Joe's proposal of leaving the domain out? If so, a new revision would be needed so that we can get this sorted out and successfully conclude the WGLC.
>
> - Jouni
>
>
> On May 13, 2010, at 7:35 PM, Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) wrote:
>
>   
>>>> Tom Taylor mentioned this as well but I am still puzzled by it: in
>>>>         
>> what
>>     
>>>> scenario could this occur?  AFAIK all the keys are bound to a
>>>>         
>> particular
>>     
>>>> session which is itself bound to a particular access point.  What am
>>>>         
>> I
>>     
>>>> missing?
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>         
>>> [PTT]
>>> OK, this is one for the architecture to answer. I'll review the
>>>       
>> different
>>     
>>> interfaces to see if there is a case of anticipatory keying that isn't
>>> bound as
>>> tightly as you suggest. At the very least, I don't think the keys
>>>       
>> passed
>>     
>>> to a
>>> local ER server would be bound to a particular access point, but they
>>>       
>> may
>>     
>>> indeed
>>> be bound to a particular session, in some sense of session.
>>>       
>>
>> [Joe] I can't think of a reason why the domain wouldn't already be known
>> to the session.  I'd be okay with leaving the domain out until there is
>> a use-case for it.  
>> _______________________________________________
>> DiME mailing list
>> DiME@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>>     
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>   

-- 
Sebastien Decugis
Research fellow
Network Architecture Group
NICT (nict.go.jp)