Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-hokey-key-mgm

["Hoeper Katrin-QWKN37" <[e-mail]>]

Please find my reply to Glen's comments in-line.

Katrin


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Glen Zorn [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 8:24 PM
> To: 'Kurt Zeilenga'
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; draft-ietf-hokey-key-
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-hokey-key-mgm
><snip> 
> Thanks for pointing that out.  In fact, the document should _not_ talk
> about
> the use of KDE in ERP, since it doesn't exist ;-).  Re-re-re-reading
;-)
> section 6 (which is what I think you are talking about?), I noticed
> A couple of other errors, too.  For example, section 3 says "Here,
> EAP-Initiate and EAP-Finish messages are exchanged between the peer
and
> the
> home AAA server, with the bootstrapping flag in the EAP-Initiate
message
> set"; unfortunately, this is impossible, since the peer and AAA server
do
> not speak the same protocol.  Another example of the same kind of
fuzzy
> writing is in the second paragraph of the same section: "In this case,
the
> local ER server requesting the DSRK MUST include a KDE-Request message
in
> the first EAP-Response   message from the peer".  This _should_ say "
In
> this case, the local ER server requesting the DSRK MUST include a
> KDE-Request message in the AAA packet encapsulating the first
EAP-Response
> message from the peer" in order to agree with RFC 5296 (in fact,
though,
> there's no need for the local ERP server to be involved in this at
all,
> except that that is (erroneously, I think) specified in 5296).
> 
> ...
> 
[KH] Glen, I think you are talking about Section 5 not 3, are you
looking at the current version
(http://ietfreport.isoc.org/all-ids/draft-ietf-hokey-key-mgm-09.txt)?  

Could you please re-check? I am sure your comments still apply, but I'd
like to know which parts are affected.

AFAIK, Section 5 is in complete alignment with RFC 5296 and uses the
same terminology and same protocol description. I understand that there
are some problems in RFC 5296 and there is a request for errata
(http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5296&eid=1825).

Should I wait until this (and possibly other) errata has been approved
and then modify the key management draft accordingly? If I make changes
now, with the current RFC 5296, we would have a description on how to
use KDE with ERP that does not match the description in RFC 5296.