| Re: Issue 267: PRF Negotiation | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
|
From: Bernard Aboba (aboba |
|
| Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:35:23 -0400 (EDT) | |
I agree that this is needed. The issue of PRF negotiation has come up recently with respect to the NIST analysis of 802.11i. Can you suggest some text? On Tue, 19 Oct 2004, Bernard Aboba wrote: > Issue 267: PRF Negotiation > Submitter name: Florent Bersani > Submitter email address: florent.bersani [at] rd.francetelecom.fr > Date first submitted: 10/2/2004 > Reference: > Document: Keying-03 > Comment type: T > Priority: S > Section: Appendix F > Rationale/Explanation of issue > Appendix F.1 > > IIRC we had a discussion whether the prf used to derive AMSK should be > mandated or could be negotiated > (http://mail.frascone.com/pipermail/eap/2004-March/002384.html). There > is a trade off between the two options (simplicity & interoperability > are in favor of mandating one but not putting a mandatory requirement on > peers and servers favors allowing negotiation). This is not reflected in > the current appendix. I'd like some more discussion on the matter.... > >
-
Issue 267: PRF Negotiation Bernard Aboba, October 19 2004
- Re: Issue 267: PRF Negotiation Bernard Aboba, October 19 2004
-
RE: Re: Issue 267: PRF Negotiation Joseph Salowey, October 24 2004
- Re: Re: Issue 267: PRF Negotiation Jari Arkko, October 26 2004
Results generated by Tiger Technologies using MHonArc.