IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [HOKEY] REMINDER: WGLC on draft-ietf-hokey-erp-aak-04

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Mon, 29 August 2011 08:17 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: hokey@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hokey@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E3CD21F856A for <hokey@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 01:17:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.03
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.03 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.557, BAYES_00=-2.599, FAKE_REPLY_C=2.012, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 6NaT4O4k6dOL for <hokey@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 01:17:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (szxga04-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E03721F8557 for <hokey@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 01:17:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LQO00J4NKF57C@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for hokey@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 16:18:42 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxrg01-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LQO0048LKF50Z@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for hokey@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 16:18:41 +0800 (CST)
Received: from 172.24.2.119 (EHLO szxeml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id ADM95322; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 16:18:41 +0800 (CST)
Received: from SZXEML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.93) by szxeml203-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.55) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 16:18:38 +0800
Received: from w53375q (10.138.41.130) by szxeml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.93) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 16:18:39 +0800
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 16:18:38 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
X-Originating-IP: [10.138.41.130]
To: Glen Zorn <glenzorn@gmail.com>, Zhen Cao <zehn.cao@gmail.com>
Message-id: <8E53E66EC0B745B4A05463B90CA7E391@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: hokey@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [HOKEY] REMINDER: WGLC on draft-ietf-hokey-erp-aak-04
X-BeenThere: hokey@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: HOKEY WG Mailing List <hokey.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/hokey>, <mailto:hokey-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hokey>
List-Post: <mailto:hokey@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hokey-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hokey>, <mailto:hokey-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 08:17:51 -0000

Follwing this thread on multiple CA case, if we really want to support this case,
we need to well clarify the following question in the new version:

If there are multiple CAPs situated at the neighbouring of SAP,
 how SAP interact with the AAA to demine the right CAPs?

Regards!
-Qin
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Qin Wu" <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: "Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@gmail.com>om>; "Zhen Cao" <zehn.cao@gmail.com>
Cc: <hokey@ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: [HOKEY] REMINDER: WGLC on draft-ietf-hokey-erp-aak-04


> Hi,
> Sorry to chime in.
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@gmail.com>
> To: "Zhen Cao" <zehn.cao@gmail.com>
> Cc: <hokey@ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 3:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [HOKEY] REMINDER: WGLC on draft-ietf-hokey-erp-aak-04
> 
> 
>> On 8/23/2011 12:18 PM, Zhen Cao wrote:
>> 
>>> Thank you, Andy, See inline.
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 5:16 PM, andy L <pop.andrew@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> first of all, I have read, it is fine.
>>>> still I have some comments
>>>> 1 since it is said in Chapter 3 /*This document   only discusses the case of
>>>> distributing the key to a single CAP.*/ the statement like /*To  avoid the
>>>> same pre-established Master Session Key (pMSK) being   derived for multiple
>>>> CAPs, the sequence number MUST be nique for   each CAP.*/ is not so
>>>> necessary.
>> 
>> Is that true?  The document only discusses deriving the for on CAP _at a
>> time_; do you really think it's OK for the same key to be used with the
>> next CAP in a series of moves??
> 
> [Qin]: My answer to your last question above is "No". I think it is not harmful to allow the key to be distributed 
> multiple CAs when the client doesn't really know where to move.
> However if client has already know which is the next CA he is going to attach to, I think the case of
> distributing the key to a single CAP should apply here. 
> Does my clarification make sense to you?
> 
>> ...
>> _______________________________________________
>> HOKEY mailing list
>> HOKEY@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hokey

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email