Subject: [eap] ISSUE: Section 2.2.2

From: "Salowey, Joe" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 16:37:38 -0700

Submitter name: Joe Salowey
Submitter email address: [email-masked]
Date first submitted: 05/02/06
Reference: 
Document: Keying Framework
Comment type:  E
Priority:  2  
Section: 2.2.2
Rationale/Explanation of issue:

What is the specific vulnerability in this situation?

 " For example, the peer may assume that the "virtual
   authenticators" are distinct and do not share a key cache, whereas,
   depending on the architecture of the physical authenticator, a shared
   key cache may or may not be implemented."

Maybe it should describe the peer problems that arise when you have
different authenticators that provide different levels of services,
similar to the authenticator problems in the next paragraph? 

I'm not sure how recommendation [i] is related to the example of the
corporate/guest problem in the second paragraph.
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/eap

Arhives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/eap