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