Subject: Re: [HOKEY] EMSK Hierarchy Changes

From: "M. Vanderveen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 13:52:14 -0800 (PST)

Neither should we BAN an entity from holding a key it MIGHT want. If we don't/won't see a need right now, we should not rely on our clairvoyance and forbid evolution...

As I might have mentioned before, speaking for a team who implemented and deployed an EAP-based wireless network, we see the need for such a domain-specific root key.

----- Original Message ----
From: Lakshminath Dondeti <[email-masked]>
To: Yoshihiro Ohba <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]; Madjid Nakhjiri <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, February 2, 2007 1:45:49 PM
Subject: Re: [HOKEY] EMSK Hierarchy Changes

Yoshi,

We cannot require an entity to hold a key it does not want!  So, no need 
to worry :).

Lakshminath

Yoshihiro Ohba wrote:
> Thank you for the clarification.
> 
> It does not make sense to require the AAA server in the local domain
> to store a per-domain root key when authentication to move into the
> local domain did not use the local AAA server at all (i.e., when the
> authenticator in the local domain directly communicated with the AAA
> server in the home domain).  Especially the mobile device needs to
> know the identity of the local AAA server (in addition to the identity
> of HOKEY server in the local domain) for handover keying to work.
> This seems architectually an odd requirement.  I am still suspicious
> about the need for per-domain root key.
> 
> Yoshihiro Ohba
> 

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

____________________________________________________________________________________
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love 
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265 

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