eap Mailing List: Re: Issue: Proposed Different organization for the keying draft

[Jari Arkko (jari.arkko]

Joseph Salowey wrote:
> Submitter name: Joe Salowey
> Submitter email address: jsalowey [at] cisco.com
> Date first submitted: 10/18/2004
> Reference: 
> Document: Keying Framework
> Comment type: E
> Priority: 1
> Section: All
> Rationale/Explanation of issue:
>
> The current EAP keying framework contains a lot of good information, however
> it is somewhat difficult to read and understand.  I believe this is because
> it mixes issues that have to do with 802.11, handoff schemes and EAP method
> internals without clearly explaining what is expected of the external
> behavior of EAP methods.  In addition I think some of the material would be
> good to have in a standards track document.

Agreed.

> Requested change:
>
> Section 1 - External behavior expected of EAP methods and Frameworks
>
> 1.1 - Generated key material: MSK and EMSK
> 1.2 - Exported key material: MSK, AMSK and AAA-Key
> 1.3 - Derivation of AMSK from the EMSK
> 1.4 - Identifying an instance of EAP method execution and naming keys
> 1.6 - MSK and EMSK lifetime
> 1.7 - Key Request Considerations
> 1.8 - Security Considerations

I think this looks good.

Would your 1.8 include current sections 5 and 6?  I'm asking
because I'd still like to retain the "system level" nature
of the document. Note: I don't think having a system viewpoint
means the same thing as "mixing" that you mentioned above.
As the document stands currently, there's a lot of detailed
information about what particular methods or link layers do
in the body of the document. I think we want to keep the
general part of this -- such as the security requirements --
but move the details somewhere else.

> Section 2 - Internal key generation for EAP methods (informative)
> Section 3 - Example using keys in ciphering applications such as 802.11i
> (informative)
> Section 4 - Handoff schemes (informative)

These could be in appendix.

> Section 1 could be a document on its own or a normative section of a larger
> document.

I think your structure looks pretty good, and in line with
what has been discussed earlier on the list.

> I will gladly help restructure the document or work on a separate document
> along these lines if this is the direction the working group wants to go.  

Thanks!

--Jari