I happen to agree with Vidya on this.

It is not optional for new EAP methods to produce EMSK. Whether EMSK
gets used or not is totally besides the point.  (If we can conceive that
EMSK would serve a need in some distant future - we have to enforce its
generation now. And it is required by RFC 3748 :-)

What to do with the existing _old_ methods that aren't compliant - I
leave it for the group to decide.

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Narayanan, Vidya
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 9:35 PM
To: Bernard Aboba; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Hokeyp] [Emu] Re: MSK but no EMSK

> 
> It's worth keeping in mind that there are very few existing 
> RFC 3748-compliant EAP implementations.  So most existing EAP 
> method implementations do not generate an EMSK, and most 
> existing EAP implementations would not do anything with the 
> EMSK if it were to be generated.
> 

Well, the question is this - is the requirement to interoperate with
existing standards or existing implementations? Given that we have a
spec that says what it does, it seems to make sense to interoperate with
that. If we are going by existing implementations, there is probably
more than one flavor and then there is the question of when the MSK is
directly delivered to the authenticator and when it isn't and how the
peer knows that. 

In this case, I tend to agree with Charles that it is better to have to
fix non-compliant implementations than try to design around them. Also,
if we choose to ignore the standard and use the implementations that
don't produce an EMSK as a data point, the standard doesn't seem to be
serving a purpose then - perhaps, we should then consider revising
RFC3748 to reflect what we want to use as a starting point for
requirements? 

Vidya
_______________________________________________
Hokeyp mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opendiameter.org/mailman/listinfo/hokeyp

_______________________________________________
Emu mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu

Reply via email to