IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites

"M. Vanderveen" <mvandervn@yahoo.com> Mon, 21 August 2006 16:10 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GFCMJ-0008Et-L4; Mon, 21 Aug 2006 12:10:39 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GFCMI-00089B-Bh for emu@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Aug 2006 12:10:38 -0400
Received: from web54408.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.49.138]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GFCI5-0002Ex-3x for emu@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Aug 2006 12:06:18 -0400
Received: (qmail 29428 invoked by uid 60001); 21 Aug 2006 16:06:16 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=n682uen6GN1vc6IzFYfqadpRiM7jJkWGM/oqqVd5shFkZhzNT3Y77pIaJ8YCF5ybhR23M9vR8f36X6RFFeb5QMf/u9gkmrwsno5rFZg1fbSMpu0aFbfN1u9APlIJiouom7anJZlCHMxXKpykURjdw6XOh5NDAL57XmmaFy2CuOc= ;
Message-ID: <20060821160616.29426.qmail@web54408.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [67.181.83.189] by web54408.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 21 Aug 2006 09:06:16 PDT
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 09:06:16 -0700
From: "M. Vanderveen" <mvandervn@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites
To: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>, emu@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <44E877FF.10000@gmx.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: c1c65599517f9ac32519d043c37c5336
Cc:
X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" <emu.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu>, <mailto:emu-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/emu>
List-Post: <mailto:emu@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emu-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu>, <mailto:emu-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1837694866=="
Errors-To: emu-bounces@ietf.org

Both are pretty popular. Why not list them both? As for which one to be mandatory to implement, someone should to a search through other systems (e.g. IEEE, IPSec) and see which one is most popular.

Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net> wrote:  Hi all,

the current version of the document
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/emu/draft-clancy-emu-eap-shared-secret-01.txt
still supports AES-EAX:

+-----------+----+-------------+---------------+--------------------+
| CSuite/ | KS | Encryption | Integrity | Key Derivation |
| Specifier | | | | Function |
+-----------+----+-------------+---------------+--------------------+
| 0x000001 | 16 | AES-EAX-128 | AES-CMAC-128 | GKDF-128 |
+-----------+----+-------------+---------------+--------------------+

At the IETF#66 EMU meeting AES CCM was suggested.

Later, it got the impression that AES-CBC was more appreciated. Should 
we update the draft with AES-CBC?

Ciao
Hannes


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


 		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
_______________________________________________
Emu mailing list
Emu@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email