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

<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