Subject: [HOKEY] Proposed WG Item: EMSK Keying Hierarchy

From: "Charles Clancy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 13:35:56 -0500 (EST)

All,

I'd like to get consensus on adoption of the following EMSK keying
hierarchy document as a standards-track WG document to satisfy deliverable
#2 on our charter:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-salowey-eap-emsk-deriv

We discussed this on the list about a month ago.  The only objection I saw
related to whether keying should be done via a hierarchy or Kerberos-like
key transport.  Keeping that in mind, I'd like to mention that even to do
Kerberos-like transport, you'd likely want to derive a key from the EMSK
to bootstrap the process, thus adoption of an EMSK hierarchy does not
preclude the use of key transport.

Please send your comments to the list.  Thanks!

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

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

---

From: Madjid Nakhjiri <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 10:55:53 -0800

Hi Charles,

If I remember correctly, there were no direct issues with adoption of the
draft. Yoshi raised a concern about how one does re-keying in a hierarchical
approach and thought this is an issue we need to pay close attention to in
the future (not as an issue with the current version). Yoshi, please correct
me if I am wrong. 

The key transport has nothing to do with this draft, since the draft does
not even deal with key transport. The Kerberos key transport was discussed
just an example of how key life times of parent keys might affect lower
level keys.

R,

Madjid

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Clancy [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 10:36 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [HOKEY] Proposed WG Item: EMSK Keying Hierarchy

All,

---

From: "Julien Bournelle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 10:10:43 +0100

Hi Charles, all,

 I'm ok to adopt this document as WG item,

 regards,

 Julien

---

From: Lakshminath Dondeti <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 04:57:48 -0800

I support adoption of this document as a WG item.

Q:  Are we on 2-week or 1-week (given that we have discussed them) 
consensus calls on these?

thanks,
Lakshminath

---

From: Yoshihiro Ohba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 10:39:20 -0500

I support this draft.

I mentioned Kerberos in the context of flexibility in re-keying, not
much in the context of key transport.  I have no issue on re-keying
now, as long as bootstrapping Kerberos from EMSK is possible, as
Charles mentioned.

Regards,
Yoshihiro Ohba