Subject: [MSEC] GSAKMP issue 01: GSAKMP and policy token should advance in sync to PS

From: George Gross <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 15:23:38 -0400 (EDT)

GSAKMP issue 01

Section and relevant text passage:

The Section 2 definition of a "policy token" refers to a non-normative
reference [HCLM00].

Comment/issue description:

The GSAKMP protocol is strongly bound to the policy token specification. The specification
currently only refers to an Internet Draft work in progress. The spec should indicate a MUST
and a reference to a normative reference (i.e. RFC). In other words, GSAKMP and the group
policy token must advance into the RFC editors queue in unison.

Suggested issue resolution:

Section 3.2 should add a new section explaining the GSAKMP dependency on the group policy token.

_______________________________________________
msec mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/msec

---

From: "Lakshminath Dondeti" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 10:33:44 -0400

We have had a discussion on this at the meeting in Vienna.

 From the meeting notes:

 Thomas:  A possible way forward would be to define a "base-profile" 
    for the token containing fields common to the various key management 
    protocols. Area-specific needs would then be satisfied by adding
    additional fields ("extensions") to the Token.

George,

Would that be sufficient in your opinion?

cheers,
Lakshminath

---

From: George Gross <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 09:18:46 -0400 (EDT)

Hi Lakshminath,

> Would that be sufficient in your opinion?

It is a start in the right direction. however, some things are missing
from that statement. Like in which document do the "GSAKMP-specific
extensions" get specified?

Naturally, I'd like to see all the issues I've raised (and for that
matter, anyone else on the list can chime in) wrt/ GSAKMP brought to
closure, so we know exactly what changes to the GPT are required before it
advances to PS.

Having just a base GPT document goto PS by itself is not enough for GSAKMP
to advance to PS unless the GSAKMP spec includes its GPT extensions or it
else explicitly states that it requires no extensions to the base GPT.

 know this sounds finicky, but I'm trying to avoid surprizes...

---

From: "Lakshminath Dondeti" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 11:40:43 -0400

My recollection is that base-profile will be in the GSAKMP document.  
Thomas or Hugh might have a more definitive answer.

regards,
Lakshminath