Hi all,
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 04:55:37PM +0900, Junghoon Jee
wrote:
> Hi Vidya and Yoshihiro,
>
> > If more people actually think there is an issue
here, I'd be
> > happy to run it by Sam and Russ. However, I
strongly believe
> > that this step is not required at this time, since
we have
> > precedence with approved standards track documents
along very
> > similar lines.
>
> I have the same issue with Yoshihiro from my attendance
to the HOAKEY
> BoF.
> I also feel the need for getting Sam's opinion here.
I'd like to get the exact issue on this document. Is it
the HMK
derivation based on AMSK (describe in appendix and not
require) or the
mechanism based on AAA to get the shared key between MN and
AR ?
thanks,
Julien B.
>
> Thanks,
> -Junghoon
>
>
> > Thanks,
> > Vidya
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Yoshihiro Ohba [mailto:yohba tari.toshiba.com]
> > > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:22 PM
> > > To: Dondeti, Lakshminath
> > > Cc: mipshopietf.org
> > > Subject: Re: [Mipshop] Gauging interest in
official WG adoption of
>
> > > internetdrafts
> > >
> > > As far as I understand, Sam's concern is not
only on application
> > > keying using AMSK but also AAA-assisted
application keying
> > in general.
> > > So I am not sure if your suggested remedy
really addresses the
> > > concern. I'd suggest asking Sam's opinon
before moving forward.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Yoshihiro Ohba
> > >
> > > On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 05:36:46PM -0800,
Lakshminath Dondeti
> wrote:
> > > > Disclaimer: I work with one of the
authors (Vidya) of the
> > > > handover-keys-aaa I-D, although didn't
contribute to the
> > > draft in anyway.
> > > >
> > > > I just read the parts of the I-D that
seem to be
> > > contentious and note
> > > > that the reference to AMSKs is merely an
example and the
> > HMK can be
> > > > established through other means, say by
preprovisioning.
> > > >
> > > > That said, I think it is best to remove
Appendix A (I am not
> sure
> > > > about A.1, that probably should stay and
resolved later) as it
> > > > reproduces a key hierarchy and key
derivation process
> > that is still
> > > > under active discussion.
> > > >
> > > > regards,
> > > > Lakshminath
> > > >
> > > > At 04:25 PM 3/25/2006, Yoshihiro Ohba
wrote:
> > > > >I have a reservation on
> > > draft-vidya-mipshop-handover-keys-aaa-01.txt.
> > > > >
> > > > >The draft describes a AAA-assisted
key management protocol to
> > > > >generate handover keys for
protecting signaling between MN
> > > and AR. I
> > > > >am viewing the proposal as an
application keying for FMIPv6 and
>
> > > > >possibly other protocols. However,
in the IETF65 hoakey
> > BOF, Sam
> > > > >Hartman, a Security AD, raised
concern on application
> > > keying. As a
> > > > >consequence, the hoakey BOF chairs
made a decision to exclude
> > > > >application keying from the BOF
charter, expecting
> > > application keying
> > > > >to be discussed in a separate BOF.
> > > > >
> > > > >Thus, it might be wiser to hold this
draft until there
> > is a clear
> > > > >consensus on how to deal with
application keying in the IETF.
> > > > >
> > > > >Best regards,
> > > > >Yoshihiro Ohba
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 11:49:36PM
-0800, gabriel
> > montenegro wrote:
> > > > >> Folks,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> In today's meeting we talked
about 4 potential items up for
> > > > >adoption as official working
> > > > >> groups. Talking with folks
after the meeting, we've decided
> to
> > > > >add two more to the list
> > > > >> of items we'll ask the WG
whether we should adopt. This is
> the
> > > > >follow-up email to today's
> > > > >> discussion, to make sure we ask
this on the mailing list.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> So the question to the WG is:
Should we adopt the following
> > > > >documents as official WG
> > > > >> items (based on the individual
drafts as noted below)?:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 1.
draft-ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-rev-XX.txt
> > > > >> based on
draft-koodli-mipshop-rfc4068bis-00.txt
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 2.
draft-ietf-mipshop-handover-keys-aaa-XX.txt
> > > > >> based on
draft-vidya-mipshop-handover-keys-aaa-01.txt
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 3.
draft-ietf-mipshop-handover-key-send-XX.txt
> > > > >> based on
draft-kempf-mobopts-handover-key-01.txt (currently
> > > > >> expired)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 4.
draft-ietf-mipshop-fh80216e-XX.txt
> > > > >> based on
draft-jang-mipshop-fh80216e-02.txt
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 5.
draft-ietf-mipshop-3gfh-XX.txt based on
> > > > >>
draft-yokota-mipshop-3gfh-02.txt
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 6.
draft-ietf-mipshop-cga-cba-XX.txt based on
> > > > >>
draft-arkko-mipshop-cga-cba-03.txt
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Please send comments one way or
another through April 4,
> 2006.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> chairs
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
__________________________________________________
> > > > >> Do You Yahoo!?
> > > > >> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has
the best spam
> > protection around
> > > > >> http://mail.yahoo.com
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
_______________________________________________
> > > > >> Mipshop mailing list
> > > > >> Mipshopietf.org
> > > > >> https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
>_______________________________________________
> > > > >Mipshop mailing list
> > > > >Mipshopietf.org
> > > > >https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
_______________________________________________
> > > Mipshop mailing list
> > > Mipshopietf.org
> > > https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mipshop mailing list
> > Mipshopietf.org
> > https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mipshop mailing list
> Mipshopietf.org
> https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
--
julien.bournelle at int-evry.fr
_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
Mipshopietf.org
https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
|