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

[Lakshminath Dondeti <[e-mail]>]

After a quick look at the documents in consideration, I am thinking 
something like an IKEv2 PRF+ might also work.

Each time an instance draws on the key material there would be a new 
key.  Would that work?

regards,
Lakshminath

At 08:37 AM 8/28/2006, 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:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 3:26 AM
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > 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
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
> >
>
>_______________________________________________
>TLS mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls


_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls