IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Glen Zorn <gwz@net-zen.net> Mon, 16 May 2011 07:32 UTC

Return-Path: <gwz@net-zen.net>
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 DAFA4E0724 for <hokey@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 May 2011 00:32:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OFzzM8izeg+g for <hokey@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 May 2011 00:32:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpauth22.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (smtpauth22.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net [64.202.165.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0DBE0E0679 for <hokey@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 May 2011 00:32:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 12262 invoked from network); 16 May 2011 07:32:54 -0000
Received: from unknown (124.122.138.47) by smtpauth22.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.44) with ESMTP; 16 May 2011 07:32:53 -0000
Message-ID: <4DD0D31E.5090702@net-zen.net>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 14:32:46 +0700
From: Glen Zorn <gwz@net-zen.net>
Organization: Network Zen
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Qin Wu <sunseawq@huawei.com>
References: <4DC13C44.7070106@net-zen.net> <038001cc0ec3$5298d0e0$46298a0a@china.huawei.com> <4DCF727E.7050700@net-zen.net> <024b01cc1376$98550880$46298a0a@china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <024b01cc1376$98550880$46298a0a@china.huawei.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------030103060809030306050201"
Cc: hokey-chairs@ietf.org, hokey@ietf.org, draft-ietf-hokey-erp-aak@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [HOKEY] WGLC on draft-ietf-hokey-erp-aak
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, 16 May 2011 07:32:56 -0000

On 5/16/2011 10:08 AM, Qin Wu wrote:

...

>>>>
>>>> Section 7 last setence:
>>>>    [Qin]: Remove the last sentence since we can resue the extisting AAA message.
> 
> What message did you have in mind?  I can't think of any that do what is
> necessary.
> 
>> [Qin]: I think Diameter DEA/DER message can be reused. You don't think so?

For the response to the SAP (which seems to be missing from the
protocol, BTW: How does the peer know whether or not the domain in which
the CAP resides supports ERP-AAK or not?  It seems like a fair amount of
time could be saved with a confirmation before movement), yes, I think
so.  However a the Diameter peer will not be expecting a DEA containing
the new keying material.  I suppose that we could rework the DER/DEA
messages so that the DER came from the Diameter "server", though.

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email