eap Mailing List: Re: channel binding consensus call

[Yoshihiro Ohba (yohba]

On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 03:27:29PM +0300, Jari Arkko wrote:
> 
> 1. Should we take on a WG work item, a specification
>    of a solution/protocol that provides channel bindings?

Yes, I think we should take it a WG work item.  This is my impression
I had while I was participating in the reviewing process of IEEE
802.16e on their EAP usage in last couple of months.  Since EAP WG did
not have an official channel binding solution at that moment, we could
not make a useful recommendation to 802.16e about channel binding.  I
hope new lower layers can benefit from an official channel binding
solution.

> 
> 2. Is this solution something that should go to
>    keying framework, as "the" mechanism to be
>    used by everyone, or is it an independent
>    extension? Result from Paris, at least as far
>    as Yoshi's scheme goes, was "independent
>    extension".

I'd like to see basic framework solution [like the 3 approaches
outlined by Joe] described in the keying framework draft.  Actual
detailed solution can be defined in separate document.

> 
> 3. Should the solution be unified in some sense
>    across different types of EAP usage or should
>    we pursue multiple approaches? An example
>    of multiple approaches would be leaving it
>    to individual method writes without coordination,
>    different mechanisms for different link layers,
>    or developing both method and aaa-key based
>    mechanisms.

I agree with Bernard that we might not be at the point we can choose a
single solution.  However, before making a decision to allow multiple
solutions, I think we might need more analysis on the impact of
allowing multiple solutions.  For example, we can argue whether (i)
each lower layer specification chooses one of multiple solutions
(e.g., lower layer X must use solution 1 and lower layer Y must use
solution 2, etc.), or (ii) each lower layer specification allows to
use multiple solutions (e.g., some deployment of lower layer X uses
solution 1 and another deployment of the same lower layer X uses
solution 2, etc.).

Yoshihiro Ohba


> 
> Please answer by Wednesday, August 31st.
> 
> --Jari
> 
> _______________________________________________
> eap mailing list
> eap [at] frascone.com
> http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/eap
>