eap Mailing List: RE: Strawman -10/EMSK deletion requirement?

[Avi Lior (avi]

Jari,


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.arkko [at] piuha.net] 
> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 2:47 AM
> To: Salowey, Joe; Avi Lior; Narayanan, Vidya
> Cc: eap [at] frascone.com
> Subject: Re: [eap] Strawman -10/EMSK deletion requirement?
> 
> >
> >
> >>>Further, an EMSK MUST NOT be used to generate more than 
> one AMSK for 
> >>>a given application.
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>I am not sure that the above does not pose a threat.  
> >>Normally we would
> >>think that one Application would require one AMSK.  But 
> since we are 
> >>not defining what an application is -- and we shouldn't IMO 
> enter that 
> >>rat hole.  Then what if there was some application that requires an 
> >>two AMSKs.?  Is there harm?
> >>    
> >>
> 
> This related originally to the EMSK deletion requirement. 
> There was an argument that the EMSK need to stay around so 
> that application X can keep on asking the 127th key that it needs.
> 
> Now that we seem to be saying that there is no strict EMSK 
> deletion requirement, this may be less urgent.
> 
> However, I still think it is a good idea that applications 
> get just one AMSK, and if they need multiple keys they 
> generate those themselves.  And the definition of an 
> application can be "an IANA registered label for an AMSK 
> needed for a specific purpose". Since the IANA registrations 
> won't have "handoff 1st key", "handoff 2nd key" etc but 
> rather "handoff key", then we satisfy this model. But this is 
> still mostly to keep the hierarchy structurally clean and 
> simple, not for any specific technical reason. (Other than 
> that it still allows early deletion of the EMSK better than 
> if we would base all keys on the EMSK.)

I agree.

> 
> --Jari
> 
>