Wassim,
As we've discussed offlist, context transfer of keys
between ARs has the
potential to violate the Housley Critera:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-h
ousley-aaa-key-mgmt-02.txt
Russ' draft is written specifically with AAA key management
in mind, but the
criteria apply to other types of key management as well. I
skimmed your
draft, and it seemed to me that there might be a problem.
Rajeev and I have been working on this draft for over a
year, and it was
transferred from MOBOPTS with the recommendation that it
become a WG draft.
If you manage to come up with some way to reduce the amount
of signaling
involved in SEND-based key exchange for handover that is
consistent with the
Housley Critera, I would have no problem incorporating that
into the WG
draft at that time. Gab and Stefano can correct me if I am
wrong, but I do
not believe we are in a hurry to get this draft to the IESG,
so there should
be plenty of time to incorporate enhancements that you or
any WG member
would like to include.
jak
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wassim Haddad" <whaddad tcs.hut.fi>
To: "gabriel montenegro"
<gabriel_montenegro_2000yahoo.com>
Cc: <mipshopietf.org>
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 12:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Mipshop] Gauging interest in official WG
adoption of
internetdrafts
> Hi,
>
> I support making the first two and the last three items
WG items.
> Concerning the third item, I'd like to mention that
the OptiSEND
> proposal (draft-haddad-mipshop-optisend-01), while not
complete yet,
> allows the MN to share a secret with the *first* AR and
to use it to
> authenticate ND signaling messages *and* mobility
signaling messages
> exchanged between an AR and the MN during the MN
movements and as
> long as the shared secret remains valid.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Wassim H.
>
>
>
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, 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
|