RE: HOKEY and the AAA FMIP Handover Keys Draft? (was: Re: RE: WG Consensus call on AAA based handover keys forFMIPv6)

One more thing. HOKEY assumes EAP is used all the time.  
draft-vidya-mipshop-handover-keys-aaa does not assume EAP is
used.

Vijay

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vijay Devarapalli [mailto:Vijay.Devarapalli <at> AzaireNet.com] 
> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 6:16 PM
> To: James Kempf
> Cc: mipshop <at> ietf.org
> Subject: RE: HOKEY and the AAA FMIP Handover Keys Draft? 
> (was: Re: [Mipshop]RE: WG Consensus call on AAA based 
> handover keys forFMIPv6)
> 
> Hello Jim,
> 
> Good question.
> 
> The way I understand it, draft-ietf-hokey-emsk-hierarchy-00 
> generates USRK (Usage Specific Root Key) as part of access 
> authentication. These USRKs can be used by "other" 
> applications. I don't think the USRKs can be used directly 
> (somebody correct me if I am wrong). So you still need a 
> mechanism to generate FMIPv6 specific keys from the USRKs 
> generated by the HOKEY protocols.
> 
> Now coming to draft-vidya-mipshop-handover-keys-aaa, one 
> could equate an USRK with the Handover Master Key (HMK).
> 
> Vijay
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: James Kempf [mailto:kempf <at> docomolabs-usa.com] 
> > Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 11:48 AM
> > To: john.zhao <at> huawei.com; Vijay Devarapalli
> > Cc: mipshop <at> ietf.org
> > Subject: HOKEY and the AAA FMIP Handover Keys Draft? (was: 
> > Re: [Mipshop] RE: WG Consensus call on AAA based handover 
> > keys forFMIPv6)
> > 
> > Actually, this issue came up recently in a conversation I had 
> > with someone.
> > 
> > I wonder if Vidya or someone who has been active in 
> > organizing the HOKEY BOF 
> > can explain what the difference is between what HOKEY is 
> > proposing as work 
> > items for a WG and draft-vidya for FMIP AAA based keying 
> > which we've been 
> > working on in MIPSHOP? I understand that HOKEY is looking at 
> > other, more 
> > controversial issues, such as IPSEC gateway state transfer, but I'm 
> > interested specifically at the issue of access router 
> > handover keys, which, 
> > if I recall correctly, was part of what HOKEY was originally 
> > going to do. Is 
> > draft-vidya part of some larger system enhancement that 
> > people in HOKEY are 
> > discussing? Or has HOKEY dropped access router handover keys 
> > entirely? I'm a 
> > little confused.
> > 
> >             jak
> > 
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "John.zhao" <john.zhao <at> huawei.com>
> > To: <vijay.devarapalli <at> azairenet.com>
> > Cc: <mipshop <at> ietf.org>
> > Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 1:26 AM
> > Subject: [Mipshop] RE: WG Consensus call on AAA based handover keys 
> > forFMIPv6
> > 
> > 
> > > Hi,vijay
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >         Just as you have mentioned.
> > >
> > >> ..
> > >
> > >> So we would like to check if the WG still wants to develop 
> > a AAA based
> > >
> > >> handover keying mechanism for FMIPv6. So please reply to 
> > this email on
> > >
> > >> whether you think such a mechanism needs to be developed by the
> > >
> > >> MIPSHOP WG. Please respond by April 30. This is a short one-week
> > >
> > >> consensus call since we need to re-charter pretty soon.
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >         I suggest that I think it is right at least. But I 
> > want to know, 
> > > if
> > > we go ahead that means we will develop a new protocol to do 
> > the AAA based
> > > handover keying mechanism? IMHO, because the hokey seems 
> > just do this work 
> > > ,
> > > although it didn't aim only to FMIPv6. But it can be use 
> > here later. So 
> > > what
> > > is you mean?
> > >
> > >         In another side, if only two method are chosen? One 
> > is based on
> > > SeND, and the other is based on AAA. If still can be 
> > developed to base
> > > anything others if applicable?
> > >
> > >         To the statement, you in another thread just like 
> > the following, 
> > > If
> > > that means the consensus call work has been done and a 
> > document is needed 
> > > at
> > > now?
> > >
> > >> Thank you. :)
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >> But seriously I would rather see a document gathering WG 
> > support rather
> > > than saying it should go ahead because there is no one objecting.
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >> Vijay
> > >
> > >         So what do you mean about the document?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >         My two cents.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >         Best Rgds,
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > John.zhao
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ------------------
> > 
> > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Mipshop mailing list
> > > Mipshop <at> ietf.org
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mipshop mailing list
> Mipshop <at> ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
>