Re: [Mipshop] Gauging interest in official WG adoption of internet drafts

[Yoshihiro Ohba <[e-mail]>]

As far as I understand, Sam's concern is not only on application
keying using AMSK but also AAA-assisted application keying in general.
So I am not sure if your suggested remedy really addresses the
concern.  I'd suggest asking Sam's opinon before moving forward.

Best regards,
Yoshihiro Ohba

On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 05:36:46PM -0800, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
> Disclaimer: I work with one of the authors (Vidya) of the 
> handover-keys-aaa I-D, although didn't contribute to the draft in anyway.
> 
> I just read the parts of the I-D that seem to be contentious and note 
> that the reference to AMSKs is merely an example and the HMK can be 
> established through other means, say by preprovisioning.
> 
> That said, I think it is best to remove Appendix A (I am not sure 
> about A.1, that probably should stay and resolved later) as it 
> reproduces a key hierarchy and key derivation process that is still 
> under active discussion.
> 
> regards,
> Lakshminath
> 
> At 04:25 PM 3/25/2006, Yoshihiro Ohba wrote:
> >I have a reservation on draft-vidya-mipshop-handover-keys-aaa-01.txt.
> >
> >The draft describes a AAA-assisted key management protocol to generate
> >handover keys for protecting signaling between MN and AR.  I am
> >viewing the proposal as an application keying for FMIPv6 and possibly
> >other protocols.  However, in the IETF65 hoakey BOF, Sam Hartman, a
> >Security AD, raised concern on application keying.  As a consequence,
> >the hoakey BOF chairs made a decision to exclude application keying
> >from the BOF charter, expecting application keying to be discussed in
> >a separate BOF.
> >
> >Thus, it might be wiser to hold this draft until there is a clear
> >consensus on how to deal with application keying in the IETF.
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Yoshihiro Ohba
> >
> >
> >On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 11:49:36PM -0800, gabriel montenegro wrote:
> >> Folks,
> >>
> >> In today's meeting we talked about 4 potential items up for 
> >adoption as official working
> >> groups. Talking with folks after the meeting, we've decided to 
> >add two more to the list
> >> of items we'll ask the WG whether we should adopt. This is the 
> >follow-up email to today's
> >> discussion, to make sure we ask this on the mailing list.
> >>
> >> So the question to the WG is: Should we adopt the following 
> >documents as official WG
> >> items (based on the individual drafts as noted below)?:
> >>
> >> 1. draft-ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-rev-XX.txt
> >> based on draft-koodli-mipshop-rfc4068bis-00.txt
> >>
> >> 2. draft-ietf-mipshop-handover-keys-aaa-XX.txt
> >> based on  draft-vidya-mipshop-handover-keys-aaa-01.txt
> >>
> >> 3. draft-ietf-mipshop-handover-key-send-XX.txt
> >> based on draft-kempf-mobopts-handover-key-01.txt (currently expired)
> >>
> >> 4. draft-ietf-mipshop-fh80216e-XX.txt
> >> based on draft-jang-mipshop-fh80216e-02.txt
> >>
> >> 5. draft-ietf-mipshop-3gfh-XX.txt
> >> based on draft-yokota-mipshop-3gfh-02.txt
> >>
> >> 6. draft-ietf-mipshop-cga-cba-XX.txt
> >> based on draft-arkko-mipshop-cga-cba-03.txt
> >>
> >> Please send comments one way or another through April 4, 2006.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> chairs
> >>
> >>
> >> __________________________________________________
> >> Do You Yahoo!?
> >> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> >> http://mail.yahoo.com
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Mipshop mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
> >>
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Mipshop mailing list
> >[e-mail]
> >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop