eap Mailing List: Re: Re: Issue 267: PRF Negotiation

[Jari Arkko (jari.arkko]

Hi Joe,

I think this would be sufficient.

> Create an IANA managed list (expert review) of PRFs that have the
> appropriate form.
> Assign one of the PRFs as the default PRF.
> If an EAP method specification doesn't specify anything then the default PRF
> is used.
> As an alternative, an EAP method specification may either specify an
> alternate PRF from the list or it may provide a way to negotiate one of the
> PRF's in the list. 
>
> If this sounds good I can write it up more formally.
>
> Joe
>
>
> eap-admin [at] frascone.com wrote:
>
> > 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.... 
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > eap mailing list
> > eap [at] frascone.com
> > http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/eap
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eap mailing list
> eap [at] frascone.com
> http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/eap