IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [kitten] CAMMAC open issues

Tom Yu <tlyu@MIT.EDU> Mon, 11 November 2013 22:51 UTC

Return-Path: <tlyu@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: kitten@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: kitten@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C39E211E80DC for <kitten@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 14:51:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 mm6l0uzPo8Xv for <kitten@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 14:51:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-5.mit.edu (dmz-mailsec-scanner-5.mit.edu [18.7.68.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB46721E80B7 for <kitten@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 14:51:18 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: 12074422-b7f9d6d000000bc0-5c-52815f65df4a
Received: from mailhub-auth-2.mit.edu ( [18.7.62.36]) (using TLS with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by dmz-mailsec-scanner-5.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id E7.AE.03008.66F51825; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 17:51:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) by mailhub-auth-2.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id rABMpHC4009101; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 17:51:17 -0500
Received: from cathode-dark-space.mit.edu (cathode-dark-space.mit.edu [18.18.1.96]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as tlyu@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id rABMpFUD024248 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 11 Nov 2013 17:51:17 -0500
Received: (from tlyu@localhost) by cathode-dark-space.mit.edu (8.12.9.20060308) id rABMpFJr013462; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 17:51:15 -0500 (EST)
To: Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu>
References: <3952_1383839837_rA7FvGqv007407_ldvd2mcdx2s.fsf@cathode-dark-space.mit.edu> <1384206692.31412.2.camel@minbar.fac.cs.cmu.edu>
From: Tom Yu <tlyu@MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 17:51:15 -0500
In-Reply-To: <1384206692.31412.2.camel@minbar.fac.cs.cmu.edu> (Jeffrey Hutzelman's message of "Mon, 11 Nov 2013 16:51:32 -0500")
Message-ID: <ldva9hamu1o.fsf@cathode-dark-space.mit.edu>
Lines: 12
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrLIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixG6nopsW3xhk0LacxeL6+3PsFkc3r2Jx YPLY33qM1WPJkp9MAUxRXDYpqTmZZalF+nYJXBnv5u9nKvjKXHFr/U22BsZJzF2MHBwSAiYS B2frdDFyApliEhfurWfrYuTiEBKYzSTRtbyBBcLZyCixb/NxdgjnHJPEgyvtjBBOF6PEjobH 7CD9IgKqEvfmzGIBsZkFhCWWrznLBmILC2hIbHp7gA2u4c/MV4wgu9kEpCWOLi4DqWEB6t15 ZjfYUE6BBkaJlf0fWEFqeAUsJO7c5AWp4RHglNg9aSvYLl4BQYmTM59A7dKSuPHvJdMERsFZ SFKzkKQWMDKtYpRNya3SzU3MzClOTdYtTk7My0st0jXVy80s0UtNKd3ECA5VF6UdjD8PKh1i FOBgVOLh3cHVGCTEmlhWXJl7iFGSg0lJlDcpDijEl5SfUpmRWJwRX1Sak1p8iFGCg1lJhPet B1CONyWxsiq1KB8mJc3BoiTOe4vDPkhIID2xJDU7NbUgtQgmK8PBoSTBmw8yVLAoNT21Ii0z pwQhzcTBCTKcB2h4G0gNb3FBYm5xZjpE/hSjopQ475pYoIQASCKjNA+uF5ZKXjGKA70izBsG 0s4DTENw3a+ABjMBDXZ4VQsyuCQRISXVwBj+/Z/E3X9fbmZG7dny7+4xj0PmCe9jJQ+Fb3sS /HP+ojTT5KZf1jNkwqsmVh6Yli6islF6R9QMzfSKVWbh+eG9VfJiKS+XLrd26ZFilrHqPrtZ isfh5dIvm17FluULdFoUMbK2tLMbpnTvd5w8+/XcewtPGRXcmldreFZNYfJRpzLjpCPBh5RY ijMSDbWYi4oTAT3cmesAAwAA
Cc: kitten@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [kitten] CAMMAC open issues
X-BeenThere: kitten@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Common Authentication Technologies - Next Generation <kitten.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/kitten>, <mailto:kitten-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/kitten>
List-Post: <mailto:kitten@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:kitten-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten>, <mailto:kitten-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 22:51:25 -0000

Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu> writes:

> I fail to see how these are alternatives.  As a wrapper, AD-IF-RELEVANT
> has special semantics which nullify the criticality of the element it
> wraps.  AD-KDCIssued does not have this property.

I think there is implied non-criticality of the enclosed elements (RFC
4120 5.2.6.2):

   This element and the elements it encapsulates MAY safely be ignored
   by applications, application servers, and KDCs that do not
   implement this element.

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status