RE: [HOKEY] EMSK Issue

"Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <jsalowey@cisco.com> Mon, 31 March 2008 05:32 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42B5E3A6884; Sun, 30 Mar 2008 22:32:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC25628C16D; Sun, 30 Mar 2008 22:32:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CycokIS53coi; Sun, 30 Mar 2008 22:32:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB1D13A6884; Sun, 30 Mar 2008 22:32:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,580,1199692800"; d="scan'208";a="9805420"
Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Mar 2008 22:32:14 -0700
Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com (sj-core-3.cisco.com [171.68.223.137]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2V5WE2L006286; Sun, 30 Mar 2008 22:32:14 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2V5WERC012132; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 05:32:14 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-225.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.38]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 30 Mar 2008 22:32:14 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: RE: [HOKEY] EMSK Issue
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 22:33:03 -0700
Message-ID: <AC1CFD94F59A264488DC2BEC3E890DE50589A018@xmb-sjc-225.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <C24CB51D5AA800449982D9BCB90325130162110E@NAEX13.na.qualcomm.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [HOKEY] EMSK Issue
Thread-Index: AciNVURfKL5k48XoQuuTKuVJnSKTeAAhVkrgAUV0ZMA=
From: "Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <jsalowey@cisco.com>
To: "Narayanan, Vidya" <vidyan@qualcomm.com>, Charles Clancy <clancy@cs.umd.edu>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Mar 2008 05:32:14.0008 (UTC) FILETIME=[933C7B80:01C892F0]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2195; t=1206941534; x=1207805534; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jsalowey@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Joseph=20Salowey=20(jsalowey)=22=20<jsalowey@ci sco.com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[HOKEY]=20EMSK=20Issue |Sender:=20; bh=3QQQhQZFwDJjZ6wJRW1+61SO2HTig3Y2GYAccbvKBOw=; b=TOhuXryApriB5JxBZ9m4s0eOOB4su4ervJTV8NM+rm2vBO/eUt+N5CYKZQ EIftkCyWhCvhpeH0VSOL8GP12oFWNR7SUiTYRBAiPiyM3DN8DNNE9fyhqHoL W4hhmCNLCp;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=jsalowey@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; );
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, hokey@ietf.org, Bernard Aboba <bernarda@windows.microsoft.com>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

Hi Vidya,

I think this is an excellent start.  I'll put some applicability and
security considerations text together for the document for discussion on
the list.  

Cheers,

Joe 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: hokey-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:hokey-bounces@ietf.org] 
> On Behalf Of Narayanan, Vidya
> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 11:27 AM
> To: Charles Clancy
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org; hokey@ietf.org; Bernard Aboba
> Subject: Re: [HOKEY] EMSK Issue
> 
> Charles,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Charles Clancy [mailto:clancy@cs.umd.edu]
> > Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 7:18 PM
> > To: Narayanan, Vidya
> > Cc: Glen Zorn; ietf@ietf.org; hokey@ietf.org; Bernard Aboba
> > Subject: Re: [HOKEY] EMSK Issue
> > 
> > Vidya,
> > 
> >  > ... do the responsible thing, which would be to clearly 
> define the  
> > > applicability, along with providing an interoperable means of 
> > defining  > the key hierarchy for those usages that want to/can use 
> > it.
> > 
> > This is all I'm suggesting we do.  I think we should add 
> text to the 
> > document that gives guidance on the types of usages for 
> which a USRK 
> > would be appropriate.  Usages should be for functions 
> related to the 
> > access network to which you are connecting, and for 
> functions where it 
> > is reasonable for your access network to have an interest in 
> > authorization.
> > 
> 
> How about the following text for applicability: 
> 
> "It must be noted that any application of EAP keying material 
> to other usages such as handoffs, IP mobility or other 
> applications is only feasible when those services are 
> provided either by or through the provider handling network 
> access.  It is also only feasible when those usages only 
> occur over EAP-capable interfaces. Hence, deriving USRKs or 
> DSUSRKs for usages other than those facilitated by the 
> network access provider is NOT RECOMMENDED." 
> 
> Thanks,
> Vidya
> _______________________________________________
> HOKEY mailing list
> HOKEY@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hokey
> 
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf