Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ohba-pana-pemk-03

Yoshihiro Ohba <yoshihiro.ohba@toshiba.co.jp> Fri, 08 January 2010 08:38 UTC

Return-Path: <yoshihiro.ohba@toshiba.co.jp>
X-Original-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DD993A6821; Fri, 8 Jan 2010 00:38:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.089
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.089 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LYteeP+IbT-p; Fri, 8 Jan 2010 00:38:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imx12.toshiba.co.jp (imx12.toshiba.co.jp [61.202.160.132]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F9F13A67F4; Fri, 8 Jan 2010 00:38:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from arc11.toshiba.co.jp ([133.199.90.127]) by imx12.toshiba.co.jp with ESMTP id o088ctIR027713; Fri, 8 Jan 2010 17:38:55 +0900 (JST)
Received: (from root@localhost) by arc11.toshiba.co.jp id o088ctc3024536; Fri, 8 Jan 2010 17:38:55 +0900 (JST)
Received: from ovp11.toshiba.co.jp [133.199.90.148] by arc11.toshiba.co.jp with ESMTP id TAA24533; Fri, 8 Jan 2010 17:38:55 +0900
Received: from mx.toshiba.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ovp11.toshiba.co.jp with ESMTP id o088css2012540; Fri, 8 Jan 2010 17:38:55 +0900 (JST)
Received: from tsbpoa.po.toshiba.co.jp by toshiba.co.jp id o088cocG013120; Fri, 8 Jan 2010 17:38:53 +0900 (JST)
Received: from [133.196.17.30] by mail.po.toshiba.co.jp (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.05 (built Oct 21 2004)) with ESMTPA id <0KVX00HP66OM4180@mail.po.toshiba.co.jp>; Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:38:46 +0900 (JST)
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:38:44 +0900
From: Yoshihiro Ohba <yoshihiro.ohba@toshiba.co.jp>
In-reply-to: <029201ca9039$f83ad020$e8b07060$%yegin@yegin.org>
To: Alper Yegin <alper.yegin@yegin.org>
Message-id: <4B46EF14.2060901@toshiba.co.jp>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
References: <20100106071553.21C5B17B380F@calvin.home.tislabs.com> <4B46E06D.4070607@toshiba.co.jp> <029001ca9037$f17bbda0$d47338e0$%yegin@yegin.org> <4B46E5DB.2030706@toshiba.co.jp> <029201ca9039$f83ad020$e8b07060$%yegin@yegin.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
Cc: secdir@ietf.org, jari.arkko@piuha.net, iesg@ietf.org, 'Russ Mundy' <mundy@sparta.com>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ohba-pana-pemk-03
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 08:38:59 -0000

Alper Yegin wrote:
> Yoshi,
> 
> Going back to the baseline text, it says:
> 
>    A PEMK is used between a PaC and an EP.  A PEMK MUST NOT be shared
>    among multiple PaCs or EPs.
> 
> 
> I think the intent of the first sentence is same as the second one.
> 
> So, saying "A PEMK is bound to a PaC-EP pair. A PEMK MUST NOT be shared among multiple PaCs or EPs." is more accurate.

I agree.

Yoshihiro Ohba


> 
> Alper
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Yoshihiro Ohba [mailto:yoshihiro.ohba@toshiba.co.jp]
>> Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 9:59 AM
>> To: Alper Yegin
>> Cc: 'Russ Mundy'; iesg@ietf.org; secdir@ietf.org; jari.arkko@piuha.net
>> Subject: Re: Secdir review of draft-ohba-pana-pemk-03
>>
>> Alper,
>>
>> Since it does not say "Only one PMK is used ...", I think
>> the case you mentioned below is covered.
>>
>> Yoshihiro Ohba
>>
>>
>> Alper Yegin wrote:
>>>>> ** To make the scope more clear, I would suggest changing the first
>>>>>    sentence of section 2.2 to read: "One PEMK is used between one
>> PaC
>>>>>    and one EP."
>>>> OK.
>>> There can be multiple PANA sessions between the same PaC and the PAA,
>> hence there can also be multiple PEMKs between the same pair of PaC-EP.
>> This is currently allowed by the specs, and I don't see a need to
>> constrain that with the above sentence.
>>> Alper
>>>
>>>
>>>
> 
> 
>