Re: [HOKEY] [hokey] #7: Discussion of early authentication in section 1 incorrect
Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Wed, 28 September 2011 05:59 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 9081C21F8C52 for <hokey@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Tue, 27 Sep 2011 22:59:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.556
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.556 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.043,
BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 7afJswY2fLHL for
<hokey@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 22:59:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.64])
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2DA521F8BEC for <hokey@ietf.org>;
Tue, 27 Sep 2011 22:59:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga05-in [172.24.2.49]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com
(iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id
<0LS70036MY39IZ@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for hokey@ietf.org;
Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:01:57 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by
szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8
2006)) with ESMTP id <0LS700L5QY36LL@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for
hokey@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:01:57 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxeml201-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by
szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id ADY46169;
Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:01:25 +0800
Received: from SZXEML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.93) by
szxeml201-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS)
id 14.1.270.1; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:01:21 +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;
Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:01:18 +0800
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:01:18 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
X-Originating-IP: [10.138.41.130]
To: Glen Zorn <glenzorn@gmail.com>
Message-id: <10FD481538D845F39D468E31D232AEB0@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=UTF-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
References: <058.d484878f7cd9260d597e7462daecd309@trac.tools.ietf.org>
<067.074a33490344c029677e901bde9c9358@trac.tools.ietf.org>
<255F38D4C569477CAE70FCC91648F4DB@china.huawei.com>
<4E82B6FE.9040908@gmail.com>
Cc: hokey@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [HOKEY] [hokey] #7: Discussion of early authentication in section
1 incorrect
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: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 05:59:16 -0000
----- Original Message ----- From: "Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@gmail.com> To: "Qin Wu" <bill.wu@huawei.com> Cc: <hokey@ietf.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 1:56 PM Subject: Re: [HOKEY] [hokey] #7: Discussion of early authentication in section 1 incorrect > On 9/28/2011 10:38 AM, Qin Wu wrote: > ... > >>> From the minutes of the QC session: >>> >>> Change "AAK the client interacts with the AAA to discovery and connect >>> with CAPs". That's not quite true. >> >> [Qin]: Since CAP discovery is out of the scope of hokey, I would suggest to rephrase >> this sentence as follows: >> " >> AAK the AAA interacts with the client to discovery and connect >> with CAPs and the existing trust relationship between SAP and CAP is not needed. >> " >> Does this make sense? > > One problem seems to be that the term "client" is not really > well-defined here. My guess is that it means either "peer" (in the EAP > sense) or "mobile node", but neither of those have any awareness of or > direct interaction with AAA. I think SAP should know who he is talking to. Therefore how about saying " AAK the AAA interacts with the SAP to discovery and connect with CAPs and the existing trust relationship between SAP and CAP is not needed. " ? > ... >