SOI: preshared

Michael Thomas <mat@cisco.com> Mon, 19 November 2001 16:46 UTC

Received: from lists.tislabs.com (portal.gw.tislabs.com [192.94.214.101]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id fAJGk6808354; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 08:46:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by lists.tislabs.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id KAA09429 Mon, 19 Nov 2001 10:54:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Thomas <mat@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <15353.11388.281025.686412@thomasm-u1.cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 07:59:56 -0800
To: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Subject: SOI: preshared
In-Reply-To: <200111191328.IAA26753@ietf.org>
References: <200111191328.IAA26753@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: VM 6.72 under 21.1 (patch 6) "Big Bend" XEmacs Lucid
X-Face: &, heK/V66p?[2!i|tVn, 9lN0TUvEv7:9FzXREj/AuzN4m<D]vnFJ>u!4x[/Z4t{V}~L]+Sk @RFNnJEg~WZ/(8<`5a), -7ukALWa^&?&D2R0CSG3kO5~#6JxLF\d, g">$%B!0w{W)qIhmwhye104zd bUcI'1!
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Precedence: bulk

There's an interesting question posed by Cheryl's
requirements draft about the scope of son-of-ike.
As Cheryl points out, IKE is popularly thought of
as a PKI authentication protocol even if the
reality is something else.

I think we're at an interesting cross roads here
because a SOI doesn't have to be a kitchen sink
protocol anymore since we've gained experience, as
well as having some other arrows in our quiver (cf
KINK). JFK positions itself as a PKI
authentication *only* protocol. KINK is quite
naturally useful for pre-shared keys, but requires
an active third party authentication box (KDC).

So here's the questions:

1) Should we deem peer-peer preshared keying bogus?
2) If not, should SOI inherently be a dual (triple...)
   authentication mechanism protocol?
3) If so, how do we bound the authentication
   mechanisms to keep IKE manageable?
4) If not, what fills the hole of peer-peer
   pre-shared keys? A different protocol?
   Extend KINK (many possible ways to do this)?

	  Mike