Subject: [Emu] GPSK Open Issues - mandatory ciphersuites

From: "Joseph Salowey \(jsalowey\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 15:04:56 -0700

Here is my suggestion for resolving the ciphersuite issue:

We need to define a small set (preferably one, maybe two) of mandatory
to implement ciphersuites for GPSK. The mandatory to implement ciphers
should exercise the features of GPSK.  This would suggest that it should
be a block cipher based ciphersuite. It seems a reasonable choice is
AES-CBC with AES-CMAC.  This makes use of a single base algorithm using
relatively simple modes of operation. 

The HMAC-SHA256 ciphersuite should also be described, but is not
mandatory to implement.

Does this seem reasonable? Any objections?

Thanks,

Joe

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

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 11:52:46 +0200

Fine with me.

Issue#6:
http://www.tschofenig.com:8080/eap-gpsk/issue6

---

From: Lakshminath Dondeti <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 11:05:04 -0700

This is good!

Lakshminath

---

From: Charles Clancy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:16:35 -0400

I concur.

-- 
t. charles clancy, ph.d.  |  [email-masked]  |  www.cs.umd.edu/~clancy

---

From: Charles Clancy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:16:35 -0400

I concur.

---

From: David McGrew <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 05:09:28 -0700

Hi Joe,

a ciphersuite consisting of AES-CBC and AES-CMAC seems reasonable,  
but we should strive to make sure that the method that derives keys  
for these algorithms is FIPS-140 approved, so that a module  
implementing all three methods can be validated.  The KDFs defined in  
draft-dang-nistkdf-01.txt meet this requirement, but would require  
that a hash function like SHA-256 be present.  Still, this seems like  
a decent way to go because at least it keeps SHA-256 out of the data- 
processing path, and the alternate ciphersuite that you mention has  
it there.

David

---

From: "Bernard Aboba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 18:56:33 -0700

I have updated RFC 2716bis with a list of changes, added a section on 
privacy, rewritten the key hierarchy section to utilize modern terminology 
(MSK, EMSK), and updated the security considerations section.

The updated document is available here:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-simon-emu-rfc2716bis-03.txt

Comments welcome.