Subject: [KEYPROV] draft-ietf-keyprov-dskpp-01

From: Lakshminath Dondeti <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 02:04:43 -0800

Hi all,

After the meeting, I had a chance to read the draft, well a bit of it 
anyway.

I realize that there is no standard way of writing security protocol 
messages, but I would suggest that we imitate one of the widely used 
protocols rather than reinventing.

Next, the terminology section needs to be cleaned up and made 
consistent.  I would be interested in seeing terms such as Device and 
Client defined in that section.  Key names are extremely confusing to me.

For instance, there is this:
ENC_PX(Y)       Encryption using message Y with a public key X

and these:

k_CLIENT        Private key of the DSKPP client

K_CLIENT        Public key of the DSKPP client

K_SERVER        Public key of the DSKPP server

K_SHARED        Secret key shared between the DSKPP client and the
                    DSKPP server

K_CONFDATA      Key configuration data carried within the key
                    container

There has to be a better way than calling everything K!

There are other similar issues with other names as well.  The best way 
forward may be to start with one of the old key management 
specifications (e.g., build on 4306, 3830 or other similar 
specifications).  If naming the various payload gets too complex, I 
would suggest following the model of 4535.

After this proposed rewrite is completed, I am happy to review this 
protocol and try and understand its security properties.

thanks,
Lakshminath

_______________________________________________
KEYPROV mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/keyprov

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 09:18:28 +0100

Hi Lakshminath

thanks for the terminology proposal. I strongly support this change to 
improve the readability of the document.

Ciao
Hannes