Subject: RE: [AAA-WG]: Issues 188, 189 and 190

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 16:39:51 +0300

> From: ext Glen Zorn [mailto:[email-masked]]

> What I'm saying is that just saying "MASTER_KEY" w/o further 
> qualification
> is by definition more ambiguous that saying either "ENCRYPTION_KEY" or
> "INTEGRITY_KEY".  Furthermore, I can't find in the definition of the
> NAS-Key-Type AVP any requirement (either explicit or implied) 
> that the key
> material therein be used w/o modification or any prohibition of the
> derivation of other keys from that material. 

The NAS-Key-Binding AVP and the fact that it must be included are
the reasons why I thought that the transported keys are always
the actual encryption and integrity protection keys. 
Maybe I made a hasty conclusion. I don't mind calling the master 
keys ENCRYPTION_KEY and INTEGRITY_KEY, if they are used to derive 
encryption keys and integrity keys.

To me it would make sense to transport master keys only..

Regards,
Henry