eap Mailing List: Re: Re: Issue 254: Key Lifetime Issues

[Jari Arkko (jari.arkko]

Bernard Aboba wrote:

> [BA] How about if we delete this paragraph entirely?

Ok.

> [BA] Actually the requirement is really support for resynchronization,
> since it's possible to accomplish this without key lifetime negotiation
> (e.g. IKEv2) How about this?
>
> Change:
>
> "Where TSKs are established as the result of a Secure Association
> Protocol exchange, it is RECOMMENDED that the Secure Association
> Protocol include secure negotiation of the TSK lifetime between the
> peer and authenticator."
>
> To:
>
> "Where TSKs are established as the result of a Secure Association
> Protocol exchange, it is RECOMMENDED that the Secure Association
> Protocol include support for TSK resynchronization."

Sounds good. Thanks.

--Jari