Subject: Re: [HOKEY] 3 party protocol and EAP-ER

From: "M. Vanderveen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 11:27:44 -0700 (PDT)

HI Glen,
I don't forsee fixing any existing standards. We can add options (as in optional attributes) to cater to new developments and/or paranoid operators. In any case I view this more of a correctness issue than a deployment issue. They can deploy what they wish. But if the NAS ID is available, then so much better for the Peer. If not, we still have a protocol. 
Michaela
----------

Presumably the hokey server ID can be ascertained after network access has been allowed, but not the (new) NAS ID.  I really hate to throw cold water on this developing love-fest, but this is not a minor problem: I know of no wireless systems - not WiFi, nor WiMax nor  ... that actually advertises the NAS identity.  If you think that 802.11 for example is going to be modified so our lovely 3-party protocol will work, well, think again.  I, for one, have no desire wasting my time on work that is undeployable, so if we actually want to use a 3-party protocol it had better solve the problem of secure identity advertisement as well, with no hand-waving about the EAP lower layer...

____________________________________________________________________________________
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go 
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail 

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

---

From: "Glen Zorn \(gwz\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:45:02 -0700

HI Glen,
I don't forsee fixing any existing standards. We can add options (as in
optional attributes) to cater to new developments and/or paranoid
operators. In any case I view this more of a correctness issue than a
deployment issue. They can deploy what they wish. But if the NAS ID is
available, then so much better for the Peer. If not, we still have a
protocol.  
Don't understand: what is the good of having a protocol that doesn't
work?  In any case, the protocol can probably be fixed to carry the
appropriate data; my point is just that it must be. 
Michaela
----------
 
Presumably the hokey server ID can be ascertained after network access
has been allowed, but not the (new) NAS ID.  I really hate to throw cold
water on this developing love-fest, but this is not a minor problem: I
know of no wireless systems - not WiFi, nor WiMax nor  ... that actually
advertises the NAS identity.  If you think that 802.11 for example is
going to be modified so our lovely 3-party protocol will work, well,
think again.  I, for one, have no desire wasting my time on work that is
undeployable, so if we actually want to use a 3-party protocol it had
better solve the problem of secure identity advertisement as well, with
no hand-waving about the EAP lower layer...

________________________________

We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49980/*http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265> 
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49980/*http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265> 
_______________________________________________
HOKEY mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hokey