RE: HOKEY and the AAA FMIP Handover Keys Draft? (was: Re: [Mipshop] RE: WG Consensus call on AAA based handover keys forFMIPv6)

["Vijay Devarapalli" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Jim,

Good question.

The way I understand it, draft-ietf-hokey-emsk-hierarchy-00 
generates USRK (Usage Specific Root Key) as part of access 
authentication. These USRKs can be used by "other" 
applications. I don't think the USRKs can be used directly 
(somebody correct me if I am wrong). So you still need a 
mechanism to generate FMIPv6 specific keys from the USRKs 
generated by the HOKEY protocols.

Now coming to draft-vidya-mipshop-handover-keys-aaa, one 
could equate an USRK with the Handover Master Key (HMK).

Vijay

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Kempf [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 11:48 AM
> To: [e-mail]; Vijay Devarapalli
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: HOKEY and the AAA FMIP Handover Keys Draft? (was: 
> Re: [Mipshop] RE: WG Consensus call on AAA based handover 
> keys forFMIPv6)
> 
> Actually, this issue came up recently in a conversation I had 
> with someone.
> 
> I wonder if Vidya or someone who has been active in 
> organizing the HOKEY BOF 
> can explain what the difference is between what HOKEY is 
> proposing as work 
> items for a WG and draft-vidya for FMIP AAA based keying 
> which we've been 
> working on in MIPSHOP? I understand that HOKEY is looking at 
> other, more 
> controversial issues, such as IPSEC gateway state transfer, but I'm 
> interested specifically at the issue of access router 
> handover keys, which, 
> if I recall correctly, was part of what HOKEY was originally 
> going to do. Is 
> draft-vidya part of some larger system enhancement that 
> people in HOKEY are 
> discussing? Or has HOKEY dropped access router handover keys 
> entirely? I'm a 
> little confused.
> 
>             jak
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "John.zhao" <[e-mail]>
> To: <[e-mail]>
> Cc: <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 1:26 AM
> Subject: [Mipshop] RE: WG Consensus call on AAA based handover keys 
> forFMIPv6
> 
> 
> > Hi,vijay
> >
> >
> >
> >         Just as you have mentioned.
> >
> >> ..
> >
> >> So we would like to check if the WG still wants to develop 
> a AAA based
> >
> >> handover keying mechanism for FMIPv6. So please reply to 
> this email on
> >
> >> whether you think such a mechanism needs to be developed by the
> >
> >> MIPSHOP WG. Please respond by April 30. This is a short one-week
> >
> >> consensus call since we need to re-charter pretty soon.
> >
> >>
> >
> >         I suggest that I think it is right at least. But I 
> want to know, 
> > if
> > we go ahead that means we will develop a new protocol to do 
> the AAA based
> > handover keying mechanism? IMHO, because the hokey seems 
> just do this work 
> > ,
> > although it didn't aim only to FMIPv6. But it can be use 
> here later. So 
> > what
> > is you mean?
> >
> >         In another side, if only two method are chosen? One 
> is based on
> > SeND, and the other is based on AAA. If still can be 
> developed to base
> > anything others if applicable?
> >
> >         To the statement, you in another thread just like 
> the following, 
> > If
> > that means the consensus call work has been done and a 
> document is needed 
> > at
> > now?
> >
> >> Thank you. :)
> >
> >>
> >
> >> But seriously I would rather see a document gathering WG 
> support rather
> > than saying it should go ahead because there is no one objecting.
> >
> >>
> >
> >> Vijay
> >
> >         So what do you mean about the document?
> >
> >
> >
> >         My two cents.
> >
> >
> >
> >         Best Rgds,
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> >
> > John.zhao
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> 
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mipshop mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
> > 
> 
> 
> 

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