IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Bridges

Josh Howlett <josh.howlett@bristol.ac.uk> Wed, 24 August 2005 22:11 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E83TM-0006qu-5Y; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:11:52 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E83TJ-0006qT-44 for secmech@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:11:49 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA25010 for <secmech@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:11:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from dirg.bris.ac.uk ([137.222.10.102]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E83Tf-0001w8-2o for secmech@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:12:14 -0400
Received: from ncsb.bris.ac.uk ([137.222.10.100]) by dirg.bris.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.51) id 1E83Sq-0001is-St; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 23:11:23 +0100
Received: from dsl-88-104-35-165.access.as9105.com ([88.104.35.165]) by ncsb.bris.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.51) id 1E83Sq-0005AO-15; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 23:11:20 +0100
Message-ID: <430CF086.4050505@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 23:11:18 +0100
From: Josh Howlett <josh.howlett@bristol.ac.uk>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (Windows/20041103)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bernard Aboba <aboba@internaut.com>
Subject: Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Bridges
References: <Pine.GSO.4.60.0508191330380.16954@ismene> <20050819210308.GI6659@binky.Central.Sun.COM> <20050820031035.GA5352@isc.upenn.edu> <43074F76.8000604@cs.umd.edu> <20050822044255.GC27685@isc.upenn.edu> <Pine.GSO.4.60.0508220801430.1114@ismene> <35850EE42DFD2824F0DDBBC8@cumulus> <Pine.GSO.4.60.0508221008260.1174@ismene> <1DCACCAC04655B3AFE9733A8@cumulus> <Pine.GSO.4.60.0508221047001.1307@ismene> <20050822154044.GE7789@binky.Central.Sun.COM> <430CA545.3020109@uni-tuebingen.de> <Pine.GSO.4.60.0508241335240.11596@ismene> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0508241201060.16086@internaut.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0508241201060.16086@internaut.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 2.8
X-Spam-Level: ++
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: d17f825e43c9aed4fd65b7edddddec89
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: secmech@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: secmech@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security mechanisms BOF <secmech.lists.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secmech>, <mailto:secmech-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/secmech>
List-Post: <mailto:secmech@lists.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secmech-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secmech>, <mailto:secmech-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: secmech-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: secmech-bounces@lists.ietf.org

Bernard Aboba wrote:
>>Another interesting idea would be to treat each 802.11i AP as a service, and
>>you could obtain service tickets for them as you roam.
> 
> That's not a particularly appealing if each NAS requires a distinct 
> TGS and each TGS requires a roundtrip between the peer and KDC.  

Does this also preclude RADIUS cross-realm roaming, unless there was a 
corresponding Kerberos cross-realm arrangement as well?

josh.

_______________________________________________
SECMECH mailing list
SECMECH@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secmech

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email