eap Mailing List: RE: Issue on eap-keying: naming of AMSks

[Joseph Salowey (jsalowey]

It seems that the definition of the AMSK name may be up to the application
that is using the key.  I suppose it is fine to define a name, but I'm not
sure it is good to expect application to use that name.  This brings up
another topic.  I think in many cases a fixed length name may be more useful
(perhaps this is an ID, who knows).   The current naming schemes can lead to
long variable length names.  I would rather (or also) like to see schemes
that result in a fixed length name (or ID).

eap-admin [at] frascone.com wrote:
>     Description of issue: should AMSK naming be mandatory?
> 
>     Submitter name: Florent Bersani
> 
>     Submitter email address: florent.bersani [at] francetelecom.com
> 
>     Date first submitted: 10/04/2004
> 
>     Document: Keying Framework
> 
>     Comment type: 'E'ditorial
> 
>     Priority: 1 should fix
> 
>     Section: 2.4
> 
>     Rationale/Explanation of issue:
> 
> section 2.4 reads:  "AMSK Name
> 
>        AMSKs, if any, may be named by the concatenation of the string
>        "AMSK", key label, application data (see Appendix F), and EMSK
> Name." 
> 
> However, I think it is sound practice to name keys. Since
> AMSK are new,
> we shouldn't be bothered with legacy reasons. Hence, why not
> make this
> AMSK naming "mandatory"
> 
> 
> 
> Requested change
> 
> Replace the previous text by
> "AMSK Name
> 
> AMSKs, if any, are named by concatenating the string
>        "AMSK", key label, application data (see Appendix F), and EMSK
> Name." 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> eap mailing list
> eap [at] frascone.com
> http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/eap