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

[Jari Arkko (jari.arkko]

Florent Bersani wrote:

> I agree. Perhaps we capture that in eap-keying. By including sth in the 
> key naming section, saying that:
> "It is RECOMMENDED that Applications use the key names defined in this 
> document to refer to specific EAP Keying material, however applications 
> may very well use their own naming scheme to refer to this keys"
> Does that sound good?

Ok.


> I'd favor #2
> If we don't provide usable names. Applications will either define their 
> own ones from scratch or hash ours (and make possibly some mistake here).
> So I'd favor a 128 or 160 bit key name.

Fine with me!

--Jari

> > --Jari
> >
> > > 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."