IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Emu] 答复: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-emu-chbind-15.txt

zhou.sujing@zte.com.cn Fri, 18 May 2012 04:59 UTC

Return-Path: <zhou.sujing@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 264FF21F85E3; Thu, 17 May 2012 21:59:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -94.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-94.108 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.319, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 93rlNskC5dOg; Thu, 17 May 2012 21:59:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx5.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E18B21F85C9; Thu, 17 May 2012 21:59:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.30.17.99] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 621292676637534; Fri, 18 May 2012 12:55:59 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [10.30.3.20] by [192.168.168.15] with StormMail ESMTP id 33453.3709821989; Fri, 18 May 2012 12:58:59 +0800 (CST)
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse01.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id q4I4wpBi017168; Fri, 18 May 2012 12:58:51 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from zhou.sujing@zte.com.cn)
From: zhou.sujing@zte.com.cn
In-Reply-To: <tsl1umjt1og.fsf@mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.6 March 06, 2007
X-TNEFEvaluated: 1
To: emu-bounces@ietf.org, hartmans-ietf@mit.edu, emu@ietf.org
Message-ID: <OFF915C403.7946CD3E-ON48257A02.0019340F-48257A02.001B6546@zte.com.cn>
Sender: zhou.sujing@zte.com.cn
Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 12:58:36 +0800
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2012-05-18 12:58:52, Serialize complete at 2012-05-18 12:58:52
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3653526846918421584=="
X-MAIL: mse01.zte.com.cn q4I4wpBi017168
Cc: emu-bounces@ietf.org, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>, emu@ietf.org
Subject: [Emu] 答复: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-emu-chbind-15.txt
X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" <emu.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/emu>, <mailto:emu-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/emu>
List-Post: <mailto:emu@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emu-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu>, <mailto:emu-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 04:59:07 -0000

Regards~~~

-Sujing Zhou

Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> 写于 2012-05-17 20:46:55:

> >>>>> "zhou" == zhou sujing <zhou.sujing@zte.com.cn> writes:
> 
> 
>     zhou> If there is another key available, it will be great, EMSK? It
>     zhou> has been suggested for cryptographic binding.
> 
> I'm expecting that most EAP methods will use a key internal to their
> heirarchy above both the MSK and EMSK. For example I'd expect that
> TLS-based tunnels would use the TLS integrity and confidentiality keys
> for channel binding.
> 
what if there is not such an internal key other than MSK and EMSK for a 
EAP method? 

_______________________________________________
Emu mailing list
Emu@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email