eap Mailing List: Re: WGLC for eap-keying: EAP server-AAA server

[Jari Arkko (jari.arkko]

Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1 wrote:

> On your comment on AAA-key, I think we need be rid of AAA-key in this
> draft or define a precise relation between AAA-key and MSK. 
I think Bernard's new definition (The term "AAA-Key" is synonymous
with MSK) is precise. We should not delete the definition,
because there are references to it, include some from RFC 3748.

> As far as AMSK, I am ok with not including AMSK here (I guess:) ), but I
> don't agree with this document providing conflicting guidelines with
> extension draft. 
> By not sending EMSK down and asking to delete MSK after transport, we
> are tying the architects hands from creating new AMSK use cases or
> having other documents creating key hierarchies feeding off EAP keys..
>  
I personally believe AMSK definition should be included
in eap-keying. Having said that, I do not think there's
a conflict if a one document says that a quantity is
reserved and MUST NOT be used and then a later
document takes that reserved quantity and uses it
for something. We do this all the time for protocol
fields.

--Jari