Subject: [eap] Re: EAP Issue #221

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 14:19:29 -0700 (PDT)

Jari Arkko wrote:

"But in any case, even that might lead to problems.
There might be a number of proprietary ways to key
a standard application FOO.

I think Specification Required would be appropriate.
Maybe even something stronger."

How about IETF consensus?  Here is the proposed text of the IANA section:
6.  IANA Considerations

   This section provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers
   Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to EAP key
   management, in accordance with BCP 26, [RFC2434].

   The following terms are used here with the meanings defined in BCP
   26: "name space", "assigned value", "registration".

   The following policies are used here with the meanings defined in BCP
   26: "Private Use", "First Come First Served", "Expert Review",
   "Specification Required", "IETF Consensus", "Standards Action".

   For registration requests where a Designated Expert should be
   consulted, the responsible IESG area director should appoint the
   Designated Expert.  The intention is that any allocation will be
   accompanied by a published RFC.  But in order to allow for the
   allocation of values prior to the RFC being approved for publication,
   the Designated Expert can approve allocations once it seems clear
   that an RFC will be published.  The Designated expert will post a
   request to the EAP WG mailing list (or a successor designated by the
   Area Director) for comment and review, including an Internet-Draft.
   Before a period of 30 days has passed, the Designated Expert will
   either approve or deny the registration request and publish a notice
   of the decision to the EAP WG mailing list or its successor, as well
   as informing IANA.  A denial notice must be justified by an
   explanation and, in the cases where it is possible, concrete
   suggestions on how the request can be modified so as to become
   acceptable.

   This document introduces a new name space for "key labels".  Key
   labels are ASCII strings and are assigned via IETF Consensus.  It is
   expected that key label specifications will include the following
   information:

        o A description of the application
        o The key label to be used
        o How TSKs will be derived from the AMSK and how they will be used
        o If application specific data is used, what it is and how it is
           maintained
        o Where the AMSKs or TSKs will be used and how they are
          communicated if necessary.

_______________________________________________
eap mailing list
[email-masked]
http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/eap

---

From: "Joseph Salowey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 15:25:41 -0700

Part of the point of specifying a standard key derivation is to eliminate
the impact of one application on another.  I don't think that IETF consensus
should be required.  I do think that a specification is highly desirable.  

Joe

[email-masked] wrote:
> How about IETF consensus?  Here is the proposed text of the
> IANA section: 6.  IANA Considerations
> 
>    allocation of values prior to the RFC being approved for
>    publication, the Designated Expert can approve allocations once it
>    seems clear that an RFC will be published.  The Designated expert
>    will post a request to the EAP WG mailing list (or a successor
> designated by the