Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Bridges
Charles Clancy <clancy@cs.umd.edu> Wed, 24 August 2005 17:50 UTC
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32)
id 1E7zOt-00018E-H2; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 13:50:59 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E7zOq-000189-QC
for secmech@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 13:50:57 -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 NAA08304
for <secmech@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 13:50:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from carrierpigeon.cs.umd.edu ([128.8.129.58])
by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E7zPB-0001LF-Db
for secmech@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 13:51:19 -0400
Received: from ismene (ismene.cs.umd.edu [128.8.126.62])
by carrierpigeon.cs.umd.edu (8.12.10/8.12.5) with ESMTP id
j7OHobfD008590; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 13:50:37 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 13:45:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Charles Clancy <clancy@cs.umd.edu>
X-X-Sender: clancy@ismene
To: Ali Fessi <ali.fessi@uni-tuebingen.de>
Subject: Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Bridges
In-Reply-To: <430CA545.3020109@uni-tuebingen.de>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.60.0508241335240.11596@ismene>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a
Cc: secmech@ietf.org, Bernard Aboba <aboba@internaut.com>
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
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Ali Fessi wrote: > - What is the benefit of having a TGT as a result of the authentication > for EAP?!! With native Kerberos, the TGT is used to get a service ticket > from the TGS to access kerberized services. What would be here the > kerberized service?! is it just the "network access"?! or is anyone > planning to realize different kerberized services at layer 2? Is this a > new requirement for 802.11? Not only would it allow you to obtain a TGT, it would also allow you to use an existing TGT to get a "service ticket" for network access. This is probably the less-likely scenario though, since talking to a KDC requires network access in the first place. Consider the case of Win32 AFS on a laptop. You sign onto the wireless network, and you can get a service ticket for AFS without having to reauthenticate to the KDC. 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. > - Would PKINIT really be an advantage for EAP?! The point with PKINIT is > that it supports authentication of the client with public key > cryptography. But isn't this already covered by EAP-TLS? Well it gets you a TGT. As long as you think getting a TGT is a good idea, then PKINIT would seem useful. [ t. charles clancy ]--[ tcc@umd.edu ]--[ www.cs.umd.edu/~clancy ] [ computer science ]-----[ university of maryland | college park ] _______________________________________________ SECMECH mailing list SECMECH@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secmech
- [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Bridges Salowey, Joe
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Charles Clancy
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Nicolas Williams
- RE: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Salowey, Joe
- RE: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Salowey, Joe
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Nicolas Williams
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Nicolas Williams
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Nicolas Williams
- RE: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Charles Clancy
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Nicolas Williams
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Shumon Huque
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Nicolas Williams
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Charles Clancy
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Shumon Huque
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Shumon Huque
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Charles Clancy
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Josh Howlett
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Charles Clancy
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Josh Howlett
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Charles Clancy
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Josh Howlett
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Shumon Huque
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Nicolas Williams
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Nicolas Williams
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Nicolas Williams
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Ali Fessi
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Charles Clancy
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Nicolas Williams
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Nicolas Williams
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Josh Howlett
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Charles Clancy
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Charles Clancy
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Nicolas Williams
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Nicolas Williams
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Jari Arkko
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Jari Arkko
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Jari Arkko
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Shumon Huque
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Josh Howlett
- RE: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Salowey, Joe
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Nicolas Williams
- RE: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Shumon Huque
- RE: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Josh Howlett
- RE: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Charles Clancy
- RE: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Salowey, Joe
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Bernard Aboba
- RE: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Bernard Aboba
- RE: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Nicolas Williams
- RE: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Salowey, Joe
- RE: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Charles Clancy
- RE: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Bernard Aboba
- RE: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Charles Clancy
- RE: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Clint Chaplin
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… 1und1
- Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Br… Charles Clancy