IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> Thu, 17 May 2012 12:47 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 48FF421F84D5; Thu, 17 May 2012 05:47:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.644
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.644 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.379, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, 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 IiIxFMHTadTx; Thu, 17 May 2012 05:47:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from permutation-city.suchdamage.org (permutation-city.suchdamage.org [69.25.196.28]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9D6221F84CE; Thu, 17 May 2012 05:47:18 -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 C591220383; Thu, 17 May 2012 08:42:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 9AE2044B1; Thu, 17 May 2012 08:46:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
To: zhou.sujing@zte.com.cn
References: <OF20145EC5.811880DA-ON48257A01.00050E7C-48257A01.0005FCBE@zte.com.cn>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 08:46:55 -0400
In-Reply-To: <OF20145EC5.811880DA-ON48257A01.00050E7C-48257A01.0005FCBE@zte.com.cn> (zhou sujing's message of "Thu, 17 May 2012 09:04:50 +0800")
Message-ID: <tsl1umjt1og.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, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>, emu@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Emu] 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: Thu, 17 May 2012 12:47:27 -0000

>>>>> "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.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email