[Emu] Channel binding (Re: Chennal binding)

Sam,

We discussed channel binding before the publication of 4962 (I was 
reminded recently that draft-housley-aaa-key-mgmt is now a published 
document :) ) and concluded (I think) that the language in 4962 should 
just mirror the language of 3748.  I think that is what 4962 in fact does:

"As described in RFC
          3748 in Section 7.15, channel binding is required to enable the
          peer to verify that the authenticator claim of identity is both
          consistent and correct."

As to what needs to be done for channel binding, I would echo what 
Bernard said recently

"With respect to Channel Bindings, it should be understood that no 
proposals for this have ever been implemented, as far as I am aware.  So 
a first step would be for a method to choose one of the approaches to 
Channel Bindings and support it (probably as an experimental extension), 
and then to evaluate the experiment so we can understand how well (or 
badly) the chosen approach works.  At that point we might be ready to 
support Channel Bindings in other methods. "

best regards,
Lakshminath

On 8/22/2007 4:48 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>>>> "Lakshminath" == Lakshminath Dondeti <ldondeti@qualcomm.com> writes:
> 
>     Lakshminath> I would like to see the crypto-binding stuff (not
>     Lakshminath> compound binding -- as others have noted, we don't
>     Lakshminath> have consensus on that topic) and extensibility (how
>     Lakshminath> to add new attributes) specified.
> 
> 
> I'd really appreciate it if someone would think hard about the
> interactions of draft-housley-aaa-key-mgmt and channel binding.  I'd
> like to understand whether we can meet all the requirements of that
> BCP without channel binding and if not, what we need to do about it.
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Emu mailing list
Emu@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu