IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> Fri, 18 May 2012 11:50 UTC

Return-Path: <hartmans@mit.edu>
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 C6D0421F867A; Fri, 18 May 2012 04:50:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.486
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.486 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.521, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 bBW2tj4CtBE3; Fri, 18 May 2012 04:50:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from permutation-city.suchdamage.org (permutation-city.suchdamage.org [69.25.196.28]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68A8B21F858F; Fri, 18 May 2012 04:50:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org [69.25.196.178]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "laptop", Issuer "laptop" (not verified)) by mail.suchdamage.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 586172014F; Fri, 18 May 2012 07:45:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id B61074151; Fri, 18 May 2012 07:49:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
To: zhou.sujing@zte.com.cn
References: <OFF915C403.7946CD3E-ON48257A02.0019340F-48257A02.001B6546@zte.com.cn>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 07:49:52 -0400
In-Reply-To: <OFF915C403.7946CD3E-ON48257A02.0019340F-48257A02.001B6546@zte.com.cn> (zhou sujing's message of "Fri, 18 May 2012 12:58:36 +0800")
Message-ID: <tslwr49r9nj.fsf@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110009 (No Gnus v0.9) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: emu-bounces@ietf.org, hartmans-ietf@mit.edu, emu@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Emu] ð´: 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 11:50:18 -0000

>>>>> "zhou" == zhou sujing <zhou.sujing@zte.com.cn> writes:



I don't really understand how that would be possible.  If a fresh MSK
and EMSK are generated per session, which we'd expect in a good EAP
method, they need to be generated from something.  So, I'd need to
better understand what was happening if we had an EAP method that only
had an MSK and EMSK internally.

However, if that were the case I'd consider
something EMSK-based while also considering whether it really made sense
to add channel binding to that EAP method.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email