Subject: [eap] Issue on eap-keying: informational or standards track

From: Florent Bersani <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 19:43:08 +0200

Description of issue: should EAP-Keying be informational or
    standards track

    Submitter name: Florent Bersani

    Submitter email address: [email-masked]

    Date first submitted: 07/30/2004

    Document: Keying Framework

    Comment type: 'E'ditorial

    Priority: S' Must fix

    Section: various but 6.1.1 is a good example

    Rationale/Explanation of issue:

    It seems that the eap-keying document wishes to go "informational"
    but it seems to me that it contains some normative text that impacts
    EAP. I would consider logic that such text follow the same track as
    the protocol it impacts, namely EAP and the standards track.

    For instance, RFC 3748 leaves the EMSK as unspecified and
    reserved... but the EAP-Keying Framework specifies how to use the
    EMSK (e.g. the AMSK scheme).

    Perhaps people more familiar with IETF procedures can provide some
    input here?

    Similarly, I am not sure that the key naming schemes should only be
    informational, shouldn't they?

    Requested change:

    Specify the EMSK usage in a standards track document

    Add an explanatory note to the beginning of eap-keying telling
    whether it places new requirements or it only gives some advice,
    essentially explain to the reader the authoritative status of this
    document (e.g., with respect to EAP). Text will be proposed as we
    agree on this authoritative status... my feeling is that we should
    really have two separate documents, one authoritative with key
    naming and EMSK usage and one informational, with the useful
    recommendations that are made throughout eap-keying (in which case,
    the aforementioned note could look like "This document provides
    insights and recommended practice for handling of EAP keying
    material. Authoritative documents are RFC 3748 and [authoritative
    keying document]. Should there be differences, RFC 3748 and
    [authoritative keying document] prevail."

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

---

From: "Joseph Salowey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 11:30:37 -0700

The EMSK material started out as a separate document.  There was a decision
to wrap it into the EAP-Key Framework document.  Given this it might make
sense to make the EAP-keying document standards track.  If this doesn't make
sense then I think we need to clearly define what goes into the standards
track and what doesn't.  I think there may be more required than what was in
the original EMSK document.  In any case the EAP-Keying document needs to be
consistent about EMSK usage.  

Joe  

[email-masked] wrote:
>     Perhaps people more familiar with IETF procedures can provide
> some     input here? 
>