Subject: [AAA-WG]: Issue 467: Diameter EAP Keying Model Issues

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 18:19:08 -0700 (PDT)

Issue 467: Diameter EAP Keying Model Issues
Submitter name: Bernard Aboba
Submitter email address: [email-masked]
Date first submitted: 7/5/04
Reference:
Document: EAP
Comment type: T
Priority: S
Section: Various
Rationale/Explanation of issue:

The Diameter EAP document assumes the EAP keying model
described in [KEYFRAME]. This assumption is pervasive
within the document, such as in the Key-Name support.

However, recently another EAP keying model has been
submitted for consideration in RADEXT:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zorn-radius-keywrap-00.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zorn-radius-keyreq-01.txt
Since there can only be a single keying model for EAP keying in Diameter,
RADIUS and EAP, the differences between the Diameter EAP model
and the two above drafts need to be resolved.

Since the Diameter EAP document is in AAA WG last call, there is
no better time to discuss (and resolve) this than now.

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 08:53:01 +0300

> no better time to discuss (and resolve) this than now.

While the drafts that you mention do contain a protocol specification,
they appear to lack a discussion of why exactly this type of
keying transport should be adopted. As a result, I'm inclined to
consider draft-ietf-eap-keying as the way to go. Key transport
that way is also simpler, and can be made to interwork
with the old VSAs that are currently being used.

But I could be biased. What do others think? Glen and others,
can you talk about the background for your drafts, and give
some justification why this model should be adopted?

--Jari