IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dime] New version of draft-wu-dime-local-keytran

Sebastien Decugis <sdecugis@nict.go.jp> Wed, 09 December 2009 02:14 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 4B6EA3A6AB2 for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 18:14:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.125
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.125 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.231, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 S7gQOQZ0G1cD for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 18:14:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ns2.nict.go.jp (ns2.nict.go.jp [IPv6:2001:2f8:29::3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C50AC3A6AB1 for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 18:14:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gw2.nict.go.jp (gw2 [133.243.18.251]) by ns2.nict.go.jp with ESMTP id nB92Dq2r020669; Wed, 9 Dec 2009 11:13:52 +0900 (JST)
Received: from gw2.nict.go.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gw2.nict.go.jp with ESMTP id nB92DqXA009167; Wed, 9 Dec 2009 11:13:52 +0900 (JST)
Received: from mail3.nict.go.jp (mail.nict.go.jp [133.243.18.3]) by gw2.nict.go.jp with ESMTP id nB92DqeT009164; Wed, 9 Dec 2009 11:13:52 +0900 (JST)
Received: from mail3.nict.go.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail3.nict.go.jp (NICT Mail) with ESMTP id 0DFB716976; Wed, 9 Dec 2009 11:13:52 +0900 (JST)
Received: from [133.243.146.206] (5gou2f-dhcp46.nict.go.jp [133.243.146.206]) by mail3.nict.go.jp (NICT Mail) with ESMTP id 08C311696D; Wed, 9 Dec 2009 11:13:52 +0900 (JST)
Message-ID: <4B1F07DB.5090604@nict.go.jp>
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 11:13:47 +0900
From: Sebastien Decugis <sdecugis@nict.go.jp>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Glen Zorn <gwz@net-zen.net>, "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
References: <01ce01ca7842$352c49b0$9f84dd10$@net> <4B1F0642.2090604@nict.go.jp>
In-Reply-To: <4B1F0642.2090604@nict.go.jp>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
OpenPGP: id=33D9F61D
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Dime] New version of draft-wu-dime-local-keytran
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: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 02:14:06 -0000

Hi again, sorry for replying to myself!

> I believe the "Security Considerations" section should also reference
> RFC5295's security section, especially Section 7.4 (Key Distribution),
> and mention that Diameter honors these security requirements. 
Security considerations from draft-ietf-hokey-key-mgm-13 are also
important to mention IMHO.

Best regards,
Sebastien.

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

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status