

FrFrom [email-masked] Fri Feb 16 23:44:11 2007
From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
To: Lakshminath Dondeti <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [HOKEY] why visited domains?? Channel binding/
	lyingMITM:EMSKHierarchy Changes
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:24:12 -0500
Cc: [email-masked], Madjid Nakhjiri <[email-masked]>

>>>>> "Lakshminath" == Lakshminath Dondeti <[email-masked]> writes:

    Lakshminath> Are you trying to use 2026 keywords ;) ?  DOES NOT is
    Lakshminath> part of the keyword set there, btw.

    Lakshminath> Providing a root key to the visited domain and then
    Lakshminath> putting a context (The manner in which the keying
    Lakshminath> material is expected to be used from Russ's draft) on
    Lakshminath> it will support any SLA you choose.  The root key
    Lakshminath> delivered to the visited domain can be used for all
    Lakshminath> kinds of services within the visited domain or just
    Lakshminath> what the home thinks are right at the moment of key
    Lakshminath> derivation and distribution, depending on the
    Lakshminath> context.

Mmm.  I think that the security properties of a model where the
context is enforced cryptographically--that is where the visited
domain does not have the necessary information to derive keys that
could be used outside the intended context--are different from the
security properties where a bad actor could use a key out of context.
I think it is fair for Madjid to ask you to explore both of these
properties while dealing with deliverable 6.

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