Re: [TLS] draft-tuexen-dtls-for-sctp-00.txt

Hi Joe,

(taking of the ADs from CC...)

thank you very much for the pointer. I'll look into it.

Best regards
Michael

On Aug 28, 2006, at 5:37 PM, Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) wrote:

> Hi Michael,
>
> In the context of extended EAP keying material, we have been  
> looking at
> the problem of deriving multiple keys from a single root in a
> coordinated fashion to avoid conflicts.  A similar approach may  
> work for
> TLS. I'm not sure that it makes sense to use the same details such as
> IANA registry or key derivation function, but it may.
>
> The current version of the draft is
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-salowey-eap-emsk- 
> deriv-01.txt.
> Let me know if you have any questions.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Joe
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michael Tuexen [mailto:Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de]
>> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 3:26 AM
>> To: tls@ietf.org
>> Cc: lars.eggert@netlab.nec.de; hartmans-ietf@mit.edu
>> Subject: [TLS] draft-tuexen-dtls-for-sctp-00.txt
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I would like to get some comments on draft-tuexen-dtls-for-
>> sctp-00.txt. This includes
>>
>> - technical comments
>>    We would like to use the TLS master secret to generate an
>> additional shared secret which
>>    we would use at the transport layer (SCTP) for SCTP-AUTH.
>> It was already brought up,
>>    that this is a layer violation (but a nice one) and the
>> risk would be that multiple
>>    instances would do this, then these multiple instances
>> would use the same key material
>>    which is definitely bad.
>>    How should we progress here? From an implementation point
>> of view I see only a limited
>>    risk here, because we will modify the TLS implementation
>> to generate the additional
>>    material and would provide to to SCTP via a socket option.
>> So there is NOT API to the
>>    TLS user involved.
>>    Another point was to have something like a registry for
>> the material generated. This
>>    would avoid two instances to use the same material. What
>> about this? Is this a good or
>>    bad idea? How can we achieve this, if it is a good idea?
>>
>> - procedural advises (Sam, Lars this is why you are CCed)
>>    Currently this document is an individual submission. How
>> can it be progressed? Should
>>    it be taken to a WG? Which one? SCTP (including SCTP-AUTH)
>> is handled in TSVWG and
>>    TLS is handled in the TLS WG. I'm not sure where DTLS was
>> handled, if it was handled in
>>    any WG.
>>
>> I think having DTLS for SCTP is important because it is
>> needed by anyone using SCTP with PR-SCTP or unordered
>> delivery and wanting to have a TLS like security solution.
>> IPFIX is one example.
>>
>> Best regards
>> Michael
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TLS mailing list
>> TLS@lists.ietf.org
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>>
>

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls