Subject: #28 [*] Key usage

From: Kazunori Miyazawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 13:38:04 +0900

Hello,

I considered the issue and got questions.

The issue is
#28 [*] Key usage

	Usage of  kink should specify the key usage numbers for kerberos
	encryption.

If KINK uses kcrypto, we can find key usage numbers in
draft-ietf-krb-wg-kerberos-clarificaiton.

However in section 4 of the clarifications

   There might exist other documents which define protocols in terms of
   the RFC1510 encryption types or checksum types. Such documents would
   not know about key usages. In order that these specifications
   continue to be meaningful until they are updated, if no key usage
   values are specified then key usages 1024 and 1025 must be used to
   derive keys for encryption and checksums, respectively (this does not
   apply to protocols that do their own encryption independent of this
   framework, directly using the key resulting from the Kerberos
   authentication exchange.) New protocols defined in terms of the
   Kerberos encryption and checksum types SHOULD use their own key usage
   values.

The questions are:

1. Does KINK correspond to whether protocol in terms of the RFC1510
   or new protocol?

2. If KINK is protocol in terms of the RFC1510, is KINK able to use
   1024 and 1025?

3. Otherwise, I think we should assign the numbers.
   How will we assign the numbers? Does it raise IANA issue?

--
Kazunori Miyazawa

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 16:22:26 -0500

You can assign the numbers out of the space reserved for applications
if principals used for kink will not be used for other purposes.  If
principals used for kink will be used for other purposes it is
probably desirable to talk to Tom Yu and get a key usage number added
to 1510ter.  You'll also want to add the same key usage number to Kink
to avoid a normative reference to 1510ter.

IANA is not currently involved.  The 1510ter document turns key usage
and a bunch of other things over to IANA.

--Sam

---

From: Kazunori Miyazawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 08:55:51 +0900

> and a bunch of other things over to IANA.

Thank you, Sam.
BTW, will the 1510ter obsolete the clarifications?

--
Kazunori Miyazawa

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 22:13:44 -0500

>>>>> "Kazunori" == Kazunori Miyazawa <[email-masked]> writes:

    Kazunori> Thank you, Sam.  BTW, will the 1510ter obsolete the
    Kazunori> clarifications?

Yes, although it is my hope that clarifications will be at draft
standard while the new document is at proposed.