| Re: EAP-AKA review | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
|
From: Jari Arkko (jari.arkko |
|
| Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 06:15:01 -0400 (EDT) | |
Hi Henry,
That's right, I forgot that.
--Jari
The definition of the integrity protection security claim in RFC 3748 says that "When making this claim, a method specification MUST describe the EAP packets and fields within the EAP packet that are protected."
There is similar language for other security claims, too.
That's right, I forgot that.
The text in Section 9.6 discusses which EAP packets are protected, and EAP Notifications are only mentioned in order to make it clear that EAP-AKA does not protect them.
That seems appropriate. Perhaps we just need to clarify that EAP-AKA does not specify notifications need to be used, but if they are used they should be used according to RFC 3748. EAP-AKA does not need to prohibit Notifications, as far as I can determine.
--Jari
- Re: EAP-AKA review, (continued)
-
Re: EAP-AKA review Yoshihiro Ohba, October 11 2004
- Re: EAP-AKA review Jari Arkko, October 11 2004
- Re: EAP-AKA review Jari Arkko, October 22 2004
-
RE: EAP-AKA review henry.haverinen, October 12 2004
- Re: EAP-AKA review Jari Arkko, October 12 2004
- Re: EAP-AKA review Yoshihiro Ohba, October 12 2004
- EAP Notification MICs in RFC 3748 (Was: Re: [eap] EAP-AKA review) Jari Arkko, October 12 2004
-
Re: EAP-AKA review Yoshihiro Ohba, October 11 2004
- RE: EAP-AKA review henry.haverinen, October 12 2004
- RE: EAP-AKA review henry.haverinen, October 15 2004
Results generated by Tiger Technologies using MHonArc.