eap Mailing List: Re: hopefully final changes for draft-ietf-eap-keying

[Dan Harkins (dharkins]

  Hi Jari,

  What I think is needed is to not make an exception on key sharing
when a key is derived with a key-derivation function.

  That does seem to put us at a logger-heads with Sam though. Apparently
Sam's discuss related to enabling 11r but, as I said in a separate post,
what 11r stated it wanted from the IETF when it removed a secure 3 party
protocol from its draft was not a relaxation on key sharing but a secure
3 party protocol.

  So I would respectfully ask Sam to find a home for the task of defining
a secure 3 party protocol. That seems to me to be the proper way forward.

  regards,

  Dan.

On Thu, November 15, 2007 12:37 pm, Jari Arkko wrote:
> No apology needed, I didn't even realize you were critizing
> me! We need you and everyone else reacting on proposals
> and issues; this is much appreciated -- thanks.
>
> The window on changes is closed for new issues unless
> they are truly dramatic problems. I would also not like
> to re-open discussions that were held either earlier in
> the WG and closed, or discussions that were resolved in
> RFC 4962 publication process. Talking to Sam I understood
> that the derived key issue had been discussed there
> as well.
>
> But the WG definitely needs to be OK with changes that
> we are doing for the sake of resolving Discusses. That being
> said, I would strongly encourage the working group to attempt
> to move forward in a way that does not lead to a deadlock.
> This particular document has been in the process for
> over four years. There is a good chance that if it will not
> get done now, it will never be done. There are things
> that we could improve in the document, but I think the
> world is a better place with this document published
> than without.
>
> So, with regards to Sam's Discuss we still need to resolve it.
> Are we closer to agreement now, and what do you Dan think
> is needed?
>
> Jari
>
> Dan Harkins wrote:
>>   I would like to apologize to anyone who thinks I was unfairly
>> criticizing Jari. I wasn't and did not mean to make it sound like
>> I was. I think I understand what's going on. I appreciate the
>> effort he made to address other people's concerns and hope that
>> the window on changes is not closed.
>>
>>   regards,
>>
>>   Dan.
>>
>
>