Subject: [HOKEY] Oversight in key management draft

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 19:17:16 +0700

Hi, Katrin.  While doing a final review as part of the document shepherding
process, I noticed what I think is an oversight that may have occurred while
removing the RADIUS-specific stuff from the draft: section 4 says "The
following key types are defined: 0 (DSRK), 1 (USRK) and 2 (DSUSRK)."  This
seems out of place now.  If it is an error, do you want to fix it now or
wait for IETF Last Call?  

~gwz

Play assigns meaning to human activity--work erases it.
  -- P.L. Wilson

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 20:06:35 +0700

Glen Zorn [mailto:[email-masked]] writes:

> seems out of place now.  

As does the IANA Considerations section & BTW, remind me why this is
Standards Track instead of a BCP...

> If it is an error, do you want to fix it now
> or
> wait for IETF Last Call?
> 
> ~gwz
>

---

From: "Hoeper Katrin-QWKN37" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 09:46:21 -0400

Hi Glen,

See my comments in line. 

Katrin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Glen Zorn [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 8:07 AM
> To: Hoeper Katrin-QWKN37
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Oversight in key management draft
> 
> > process, I noticed what I think is an oversight that may have
occurred
> > while
[KH] 
The Key Request Token (KRT) carries (among other things) the key type of
the requested key. In the draft we specify three keys that can be
requested/delivered, i.e. DSRK, USRK and DSUSRK.

For that reason I thought it still makes sense to assign those numbers
to identify these keys, independent of which AAA protocol is used.

Do you think it should be left to the implementers to define the key
types?
If so, should we provide any guidance on this in the draft?

> Standards Track instead of a BCP...
[KH] Sorry, I cannot remind you, because when I became the new editor of
this document this decision was already made and I cannot recall any
discussions on this topic. What do previous contributors think about
this?

I think changing it to BCP might be a good idea, given that we do not
know any current implementations that use the KDE protocol defined in
the draft.

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 21:38:38 +0700

Hoeper Katrin-QWKN37 [mailto:[email-masked]] writes:

> > > following key types are defined: 0 (DSRK), 1 (USRK) and 2
> (DSUSRK)."
> > > This
> > > seems out of place now.
> >
> [KH]

OK.  Why?

> Do you think it should be left to the implementers to define the key

I think that the key types have been defined in other documents, including
types not mentioned in this note; I'm not sure of the benefit of having a
single set of numbers across all AAA protocols, but that's just me.

> [KH] Sorry, I cannot remind you, 

Sorry, it was more a question for the WG at large; I wasn't trying to put
you on the spot.

> because when I became the new editor
> of

Well, the protocol is (rightly, I think) quite abstract, but other work is
being done (e.g.,
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wu-dime-local-keytran-02.txt).

---

From: "Hoeper Katrin-QWKN37" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 13:45:00 -0400

Glen, all

I just posted a new version (draft-ietf-hokey-key-mgm-08.txt) addressing
Glen's last comments about the key type.

I believe all last call comments have been addressed and the draft is
ready for IESG now.

Regards,
Katrin

> Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 9:39 AM
> To: Hoeper Katrin-QWKN37
> Cc: [email-masked]
> > > > removing the RADIUS-specific stuff from the draft: section 4
says
> > "The
> > The Key Request Token (KRT) carries (among other things) the key
type