Re: [HOKEY] Change proposal for ERP-AAK - 5: TV/TLV attributes

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Fri, 30 September 2011 04:03 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 0CA5C1F0C3B for <hokey@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 21:03:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.02
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.02 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.379, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_83=0.6, 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 0ogHzDL2SJ-0 for <hokey@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 21:03:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B6ED1F0C36 for <hokey@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 21:03:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LSB00KF5I2A2C@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for hokey@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:06:10 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LSB00749I29UU@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for hokey@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:06:10 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxeml202-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id ADZ98818; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:06:08 +0800
Received: from SZXEML412-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.91) by szxeml202-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.42) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:05:56 +0800
Received: from w53375q (10.138.41.130) by szxeml412-hub.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.91) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:05:58 +0800
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:05:57 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
X-Originating-IP: [10.138.41.130]
To: Zhen Cao <zehn.cao@gmail.com>
Message-id: <7B205F9355BE4C069A05391EFA6ABB33@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
References: <4F53EAEA42A24FAFB8330004D09BCB49@china.huawei.com> <CAProHAS9cFP5RoSjf2h+cKkGd8aQSh47wiA0mjy85ukiLT6K4A@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: hokey@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [HOKEY] Change proposal for ERP-AAK - 5: TV/TLV attributes
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: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 04:03:21 -0000

This was discussed in the last meeting regarding if we are defining pRK,pMSK or reusing rRK,rMSK for ERP/AAK.
My understanding they have different usages although they share the same DSRK or EMSK.
According to the section 1 of RFC5295, the usage refer to a specific use case of the EAP keying material.
I think the use case for ERP/AAK is apparently diffent from use case for ERP. Therefore I think
it makes sense to assign new type value for pRK and pMSK lifetimes rather than reusing rMSK and rRK for ERP/AAK.
Also I think whether pRK lifetime and pMSK lifetime are used depends on if "L"field is set to 1 in the message header.

Regards!
-Qin
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Zhen Cao" <zehn.cao@gmail.com>
To: "Qin Wu" <bill.wu@huawei.com>
Cc: <hokey@ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: [HOKEY] Change proposal for ERP-AAK - 5: TV/TLV attributes


It is okay.

But this change seems not very necessary, do we have to emphasize that
we do not use the pRK lifttime and prMSK lifetime?

2011/9/29 Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>:
> Hi,
> In the section 5.4 of draft-ietf-hokey-erp-aak-05, it said The TV and TLV
> attributes defined in this document are the same specified as section 5.3.4
> of
> [RFC5296]. However I think this document will not use pRK lifetime and
> prMSK lifetime TV payloads, also this document introduce some new TLV
> payloads,
> therefore I propose to do the following change to the section 5.4.
>
> OLD TEXT:
> "
> The TV and TLV attributes are the same specified as section 5.3.4 of
> [RFC5296]. In this document, some new TLV(s) which may be present in
> the EAP-Initiate or EAP-Finish messages are defined as below:
>
> "
> NEW TEXT:
> "
>
> Aside from TV payloads of rRK Lifetime and rMSK Lifetime,the TV and TLV
> attributes as specified section 5.3.4 of
>
> [RFC5296] also apply to this document. In this document, some new TLV(s)
> which may be present in
>
> the EAP-Initiate or EAP-Finish messages are defined as below:
>
> "
>
> Regards!
> -Qin
> _______________________________________________
> HOKEY mailing list
> HOKEY@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hokey
>
>



-- 
Best regards,
Zhen
_______________________________________________
HOKEY mailing list
HOKEY@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hokey