Subject: Re: [pcp] Unsolicited Messages to Client with no security association

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 11:03:32 -0500

>>>>> "Yoshihiro" == Yoshihiro Ohba <[email-masked]> writes:

    Yoshihiro> (2012/11/30 21:19), Sam Hartman wrote:
    >> R4) An attacker MUST NOT be able to force the client or server to
    >> perform re-authentication unless the client or server desires
    >> re-authentication.

    Yoshihiro> The text looks like a requirement for an attacker's
    Yoshihiro> functionality, but I believe that is not your intent.

    Yoshihiro> How about this?

    Yoshihiro> R4) A client and a server MUST be able to detect and
    Yoshihiro> ignore false re-authentication trigger messages sent by
    Yoshihiro> attackers.

Hi.  I'm fine with the above. I've been struggling for a couple of days
with a response because I'm still not sure an explicit re-authentication
message (instead of something that sometimes triggers re-auth) is
required.  But I realized that at this point we both seem to agree on
the requirement and we'd just be quibbling over wording.

So if by re-authentication trigger messages we mean  any message that
triggers re-authentication regardless of whether it's called a
re-authentication message, I think we understand the requirement you're
proposing.

--Sam

---

From: Yoshihiro Ohba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 09:31:55 +0900

> re-authentication message, I think we understand the requirement you're

That is correct.

I am not sure what you are planning to do for EAP over PCP, but as you 
may know PANA approaches meet all the requirements.

Yoshihiro Ohba