Re: [IPsec] New PAKE Criteria draft posted (def. of gateway)

  Telling administrators what they can and cannot do is really not
the function of our standards body. If someone wants to use a
"long secret" or a password to authenticate gateways, hosts, clients,
peers, or implementations (or whatever you want to call the box) it's
none of our business. We shouldn't say, "nope, sorry you can't do that,
this is a client and you should use a stand-alone AAA server because of
the obvious benefits that have eluded you."

  We have RFCs on "host requirements" and "router requirements". There
isn't an RFC on "peer requirements" or "client requirements". Those are
terms that started in marketecture powerpoint slides and should not be
used to constrain or neuter our protocols.

  Dan.

On Fri, March 26, 2010 9:53 am, Kaz Kobara wrote:
> Hi Yaron
>
> Thank you for your clarification.
>
>> "between gateways" as opposed to
>> "between clients and gateways". So your assertion is correct.
>
> (Between gateways, administrators can set long secrets, so the necessity
> of
> PAKE seems smaller than between clients and gateways where passwords are
> recorded in the gateways and users have to type the passwords.)
>
> Anyway, if the scope is limited only on "between gateways" but not
> "between
> clients and gateways," the title
> "Password-Based Authentication in IKEv2: Selection Criteria and
> Comparison"
> seems misleading (since this itself misinforms that this criteria may be
> applied to IKEv2 in any cases), and the above should be clearly mentioned
> in
> the document.
>
> Kaz
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Yaron Sheffer [mailto:yaronf.ietf@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 2:14 PM
>> To: Kaz Kobara
>> Cc: ipsec@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [IPsec] New PAKE Criteria draft posted (def. of gateway)
>>
>> Hi Kaz,
>>
>> I *thought* my intention was clear: "between gateways" as opposed to
>> "between clients and gateways". So your assertion is correct.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> 	Yaron
>>
>> On 26.3.2010 1:40, Kaz Kobara wrote:
>> > Hi Yaron
>> >
>> >> draft-sheffer-ipsecme-pake-criteria-02.txt says in Page 4
>> >> "This document is limited to the use of password-based authentication
>> to
>> >> achieve trust between gateways"
>> >
>> > I would like to make sure that
>> > "gateway" in this document does not encompass VPN clients and hosts,
> right?
>> >
>> > Kaz
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipsec-bounces@ietf.org] On
>> Behalf
>> Of
>> >> Yaron Sheffer
>> >> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 3:31 AM
>> >> To: SeongHan Shin
>> >> Cc: IPsecme WG; Kazukuni Kobara
>> >> Subject: Re: [IPsec] New PAKE Criteria draft posted
>> >>
>> >> Hi Shin,
>> >>
>> >> Yes. For the typical remote access VPN, EAP is typically more useful.
>> >> Note that there is still need for strong password-based mutual
>> >> authentication EAP methods - but their home is the EMU working group.
>> >>
>> >> In addition, the IPsecME has another charter item designed to fit
>> such
>> >> EAP methods (such as the future EAP-AugPAKE :-) into IKEv2.
>> >>
>> >> Please see again the group's charter,
>> >> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ipsecme/charters.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> 	Yaron
>> >>
>> >> On 25.3.2010 20:07, SeongHan Shin wrote:
>> >>> Dear Yaron Sheffer,
>> >>>
>> >>> I have one question about the draft.
>> >>>
>> >>> draft-sheffer-ipsecme-pake-criteria-02.txt says in Page 4
>> >>> "This document is limited to the use of password-based
>> authentication
>> >> to
>> >>> achieve trust between gateways"
>> >>>
>> >>> Is this a consensus of this WG?
>> >>>
>> >>> Best regards,
>> >>> Shin
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Yaron Sheffer<yaronf.ietf@gmail.com
>> >>> <mailto:yaronf.ietf@gmail.com>>  wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>      Hi,
>> >>>
>> >>>      after the good discussion in Anaheim, and with the help of
> comments
>> >>>      received on and off the list, I have updated the PAKE Criteria
>> draft
>> >>>      and posted it as
>> >>>
>> >> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-sheffer-ipsecme-pake-criteria-02.txt.
>> >>>
>> >>>      I have added a number of criteria, clarified others, and added
>> >>>      numbering (SEC1-SEC6, IPR1-IPR3 etc.).
>> >>>
>> >>>      Thanks,
>> >>>          Yaron
>> >>>      _______________________________________________
>> >>>      IPsec mailing list
>> >>>      IPsec@ietf.org<mailto:IPsec@ietf.org>
>> >>>      https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>> SeongHan Shin
>> >>> Research Center for Information Security (RCIS),
>> >>> National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology
>> (AIST),
>> >>> Room no. 1003, Akihabara Daibiru 10F,
>> >>> 1-18-13, Sotokannda, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 101-0021 Japan
>> >>> Tel : +81-3-5298-2722
>> >>> Fax : +81-3-5298-4522
>> >>> E-mail : seonghan.shin@aist.go.jp<mailto:seonghan.shin@aist.go.jp>
>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> IPsec mailing list
>> >> IPsec@ietf.org
>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > IPsec mailing list
>> > IPsec@ietf.org
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
>
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list
> IPsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
>