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

"Alper Yegin" <alper.yegin@yegin.org> Fri, 08 January 2010 08:10 UTC

Return-Path: <alper.yegin@yegin.org>
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 72CFC3A6866; Fri, 8 Jan 2010 00:10:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.531
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.531 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1.449, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619]
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 iD-8deAAG3o2; Fri, 8 Jan 2010 00:10:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.195]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F5773A67F4; Fri, 8 Jan 2010 00:10:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from LENOVO (dsl.static.85-105-43069.ttnet.net.tr [85.105.168.61]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus0) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0Md2mA-1NAwXd31gg-00IeKO; Fri, 08 Jan 2010 03:09:58 -0500
From: "Alper Yegin" <alper.yegin@yegin.org>
To: "'Yoshihiro Ohba'" <yoshihiro.ohba@toshiba.co.jp>
References: <20100106071553.21C5B17B380F@calvin.home.tislabs.com> <4B46E06D.4070607@toshiba.co.jp> <029001ca9037$f17bbda0$d47338e0$%yegin@yegin.org> <4B46E5DB.2030706@toshiba.co.jp>
In-Reply-To: <4B46E5DB.2030706@toshiba.co.jp>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 10:09:49 +0200
Message-ID: <029201ca9039$f83ad020$e8b07060$@yegin@yegin.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcqQOIP2vH4puYFTR2unETUKXlGWYQAAMfNA
Content-Language: en-us
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19gLJuv7VMUv8kY63eY7UiOmt/Hgq4oZMG3UaA /t7XkY6GdMxOGSTuNBTqkV3tk/alBKYG3LmecxTgddewrBnORR 8EmqELiFJl7yjkJAnS0+A==
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 08:10:12 -0000

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.

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
> >
> >
> >