From keyprov-bounces@ietf.org Sun Dec 02 12:51:32 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IysyW-0002IJ-9q; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 12:51:28 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IysyV-0002I2-86 for keyprov@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 12:51:27 -0500 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IysyU-00076P-Uk for keyprov@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 12:51:27 -0500 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 02 Dec 2007 17:51:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (EHLO [204.244.76.141]) [204.244.76.141] by mail.gmx.net (mp005) with SMTP; 02 Dec 2007 18:51:24 +0100 X-Authenticated: #29516787 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+GWYEEK9aGeZ9N0UeQ6U/qGeNJF4y3fQWz6pOZez 8aTO9aAMwfW4gH Message-ID: <4752F09C.1020600@gmx.net> Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 18:51:24 +0100 From: Hannes Tschofenig User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dime@ietf.org, keyprov@ietf.org, ECRIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 01485d64dfa90b45a74269b3ca9d5574 Cc: Subject: [KEYPROV] Slides X-BeenThere: keyprov@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Provisioning of Symmetric Keys \(keyprov\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: keyprov-bounces@ietf.org We wouldn't be angry if speakers could send us their slides already before the meeting starts. _______________________________________________ KEYPROV mailing list KEYPROV@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/keyprov From keyprov-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 04 05:04:56 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzUe1-0003az-E9; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 05:04:49 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzUdz-0003RR-TP for keyprov@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 05:04:47 -0500 Received: from ithilien.qualcomm.com ([129.46.51.59]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzUdz-0002Yk-9f for keyprov@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 05:04:47 -0500 Received: from hamtaro.qualcomm.com (hamtaro.qualcomm.com [129.46.61.157]) by ithilien.qualcomm.com (8.14.2/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id lB4A4jQU024996 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 02:04:46 -0800 Received: from [10.50.64.15] (qconnect-10-50-64-15.qualcomm.com [10.50.64.15]) by hamtaro.qualcomm.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/1.0) with ESMTP id lB4A4igR025164 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 02:04:45 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4755263B.1060407@qualcomm.com> Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 02:04:43 -0800 From: Lakshminath Dondeti User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: keyprov@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-PerlMx: Message inspected by PerlMx X-PerlMx: Message inspected by PerlMx X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9 Subject: [KEYPROV] draft-ietf-keyprov-dskpp-01 X-BeenThere: keyprov@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Provisioning of Symmetric Keys \(keyprov\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: keyprov-bounces@ietf.org Hi all, After the meeting, I had a chance to read the draft, well a bit of it anyway. I realize that there is no standard way of writing security protocol messages, but I would suggest that we imitate one of the widely used protocols rather than reinventing. Next, the terminology section needs to be cleaned up and made consistent. I would be interested in seeing terms such as Device and Client defined in that section. Key names are extremely confusing to me. For instance, there is this: ENC_PX(Y) Encryption using message Y with a public key X and these: k_CLIENT Private key of the DSKPP client K_CLIENT Public key of the DSKPP client K_SERVER Public key of the DSKPP server K_SHARED Secret key shared between the DSKPP client and the DSKPP server K_CONFDATA Key configuration data carried within the key container There has to be a better way than calling everything K! There are other similar issues with other names as well. The best way forward may be to start with one of the old key management specifications (e.g., build on 4306, 3830 or other similar specifications). If naming the various payload gets too complex, I would suggest following the model of 4535. After this proposed rewrite is completed, I am happy to review this protocol and try and understand its security properties. thanks, Lakshminath _______________________________________________ KEYPROV mailing list KEYPROV@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/keyprov From keyprov-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 04 11:55:06 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Izb32-0002fr-De; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 11:55:04 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Izb31-0002Z1-9f for keyprov@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 11:55:03 -0500 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Izb30-0001f4-Pf for keyprov@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 11:55:02 -0500 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 04 Dec 2007 16:55:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (EHLO [130.129.22.206]) [130.129.22.206] by mail.gmx.net (mp046) with SMTP; 04 Dec 2007 17:55:01 +0100 X-Authenticated: #29516787 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19/yLpXSFl/BL/mpRi/a4hXhz+xrhbn7g9EUuqIPT LR9gHQEU+cmjX0 Message-ID: <475507D2.1030204@gmx.net> Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 08:54:58 +0100 From: Hannes Tschofenig User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: keyprov@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-Spam-Score: 4.8 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 2870a44b67ee17965ce5ad0177e150f4 Subject: [KEYPROV] Meeting Minutes X-BeenThere: keyprov@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Provisioning of Symmetric Keys \(keyprov\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: keyprov-bounces@ietf.org Please take a look at the meeting minutes: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07dec/minutes/keyprov.pdf _______________________________________________ KEYPROV mailing list KEYPROV@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/keyprov From keyprov-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 04 12:03:18 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzbB0-0000Oy-7N; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 12:03:18 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzbAy-0000ML-T9 for keyprov@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 12:03:16 -0500 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzbAy-0002hX-E3 for keyprov@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 12:03:16 -0500 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 04 Dec 2007 17:03:13 -0000 Received: from dhcp-16ce.ietf70.org (EHLO [130.129.22.206]) [130.129.22.206] by mail.gmx.net (mp021) with SMTP; 04 Dec 2007 18:03:13 +0100 X-Authenticated: #29516787 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18mzpxpJAUm9mIzqyNG2GsPOfAOxwjiDpHLErY2q4 dTGzjm60dzzW5N Message-ID: <475509C0.2090607@gmx.net> Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 09:03:12 +0100 From: Hannes Tschofenig User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: keyprov@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-Spam-Score: 1.9 (+) X-Scan-Signature: d17f825e43c9aed4fd65b7edddddec89 Subject: [KEYPROV] conformance matrix X-BeenThere: keyprov@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Provisioning of Symmetric Keys \(keyprov\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: keyprov-bounces@ietf.org Andrea and Ming presented a conformance matrix for DSKPP and PSKC. During the meeting Charles Clancy asked whether it is necessary to have more than one mandatory-to-implement algorithm for each type of algorithm. The impression by the group was that we only need a single one. Andrea and Ming: Could you make a proposal what the mandatory-to-implement algorithms are going to be? Ciao Hannes _______________________________________________ KEYPROV mailing list KEYPROV@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/keyprov From keyprov-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 04 12:07:50 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzbFN-0003PZ-Qx; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 12:07:49 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzbFL-0003OL-Vh for keyprov@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 12:07:47 -0500 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzbFL-0007Ta-MB for keyprov@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 12:07:47 -0500 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 04 Dec 2007 17:07:46 -0000 Received: from dhcp-16ce.ietf70.org (EHLO [130.129.22.206]) [130.129.22.206] by mail.gmx.net (mp019) with SMTP; 04 Dec 2007 18:07:46 +0100 X-Authenticated: #29516787 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX188aDoxKUI8/JSLy9G+EIFA6nUDmQ3rVZTR7IL8Vd k7b9kaKPNdHQ95 Message-ID: <47550AD1.6020403@gmx.net> Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 09:07:45 +0100 From: Hannes Tschofenig User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: keyprov@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-Spam-Score: 1.9 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed Subject: [KEYPROV] Removing One-Pass Variant X-BeenThere: keyprov@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Provisioning of Symmetric Keys \(keyprov\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: keyprov-bounces@ietf.org During the meeting we had a discussion about further simplifying the main protocol specification. The suggestion was made to remove the One-Pass variant from the main specification and to cover it later in a separate document. Objections? _______________________________________________ KEYPROV mailing list KEYPROV@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/keyprov From keyprov-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 04 12:11:21 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzbIn-0007Rc-JZ; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 12:11:21 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzbIm-0007Pm-S0 for keyprov@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 12:11:20 -0500 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzbIm-0003Vp-Bb for keyprov@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 12:11:20 -0500 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 04 Dec 2007 17:11:18 -0000 Received: from dhcp-16ce.ietf70.org (EHLO [130.129.22.206]) [130.129.22.206] by mail.gmx.net (mp001) with SMTP; 04 Dec 2007 18:11:18 +0100 X-Authenticated: #29516787 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19cCMU0DYhcZGrRpVamgNW9j2UDoizy1Zu9y3FlOR XvzUU+w/xV4BCi Message-ID: <47550BA5.6020006@gmx.net> Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 09:11:17 +0100 From: Hannes Tschofenig User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: keyprov@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-Spam-Score: 1.9 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 6d62ab47271805379d7172ee693a45db Subject: [KEYPROV] Mandatory TLS Usage with the Two-Pass Variant X-BeenThere: keyprov@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Provisioning of Symmetric Keys \(keyprov\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: keyprov-bounces@ietf.org We had a discussion about TLS usage for the Two-Pass variant and there was a strong tendency to use it. This would also address some of the security problems. Objections? _______________________________________________ KEYPROV mailing list KEYPROV@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/keyprov From keyprov-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 04 12:14:55 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzbMF-00010Z-2c; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 12:14:55 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzbMD-00010O-9h for keyprov@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 12:14:53 -0500 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzbMC-0008AE-TG for keyprov@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 12:14:53 -0500 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 04 Dec 2007 17:14:51 -0000 Received: from dhcp-16ce.ietf70.org (EHLO [130.129.22.206]) [130.129.22.206] by mail.gmx.net (mp040) with SMTP; 04 Dec 2007 18:14:51 +0100 X-Authenticated: #29516787 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/6MLpUpor6THvrI5YXZUKUAscuM1MOIo/UAJ6WYd E5ZP8O2dEjqjOU Message-ID: <47550C7A.6020401@gmx.net> Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 09:14:50 +0100 From: Hannes Tschofenig User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: keyprov@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-Spam-Score: 1.9 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 08170828343bcf1325e4a0fb4584481c Cc: Subject: [KEYPROV] Interim Meeting X-BeenThere: keyprov@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Provisioning of Symmetric Keys \(keyprov\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: keyprov-bounces@ietf.org We believe it would be valuable to have an interim meeting to make better progress on our documents. Proposal: end of Jan. 2008 - beginning of Feb. 2008 Location: US Please let us know if you are interested. Please also indicate * which location you prefer * what date would be beneficial for you. Ciao Hannes _______________________________________________ KEYPROV mailing list KEYPROV@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/keyprov From keyprov-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 04 12:18:32 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzbPk-0002Qd-Aj; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 12:18:32 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzbPk-0002QM-4H for keyprov@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 12:18:32 -0500 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzbPi-00004v-K0 for keyprov@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 12:18:32 -0500 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 04 Dec 2007 17:18:29 -0000 Received: from dhcp-16ce.ietf70.org (EHLO [130.129.22.206]) [130.129.22.206] by mail.gmx.net (mp018) with SMTP; 04 Dec 2007 18:18:29 +0100 X-Authenticated: #29516787 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18NEKQCyDwNuIr3dWOnV/S/LMDZod8QnwFWse2A5m S/GlWbKs0uNpna Message-ID: <47550D54.9000502@gmx.net> Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 09:18:28 +0100 From: Hannes Tschofenig User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lakshminath Dondeti Subject: Re: [KEYPROV] draft-ietf-keyprov-dskpp-01 References: <4755263B.1060407@qualcomm.com> In-Reply-To: <4755263B.1060407@qualcomm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-Spam-Score: 1.9 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 0a7aa2e6e558383d84476dc338324fab Cc: keyprov@ietf.org X-BeenThere: keyprov@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Provisioning of Symmetric Keys \(keyprov\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: keyprov-bounces@ietf.org Hi Lakshminath thanks for the terminology proposal. I strongly support this change to improve the readability of the document. Ciao Hannes Lakshminath Dondeti wrote: > Hi all, > > After the meeting, I had a chance to read the draft, well a bit of it > anyway. > > I realize that there is no standard way of writing security protocol > messages, but I would suggest that we imitate one of the widely used > protocols rather than reinventing. > > Next, the terminology section needs to be cleaned up and made > consistent. I would be interested in seeing terms such as Device and > Client defined in that section. Key names are extremely confusing to me. > > For instance, there is this: > ENC_PX(Y) Encryption using message Y with a public key X > > and these: > > k_CLIENT Private key of the DSKPP client > > K_CLIENT Public key of the DSKPP client > > K_SERVER Public key of the DSKPP server > > K_SHARED Secret key shared between the DSKPP client and the > DSKPP server > > K_CONFDATA Key configuration data carried within the key > container > > There has to be a better way than calling everything K! > > There are other similar issues with other names as well. The best way > forward may be to start with one of the old key management > specifications (e.g., build on 4306, 3830 or other similar > specifications). If naming the various payload gets too complex, I > would suggest following the model of 4535. > > After this proposed rewrite is completed, I am happy to review this > protocol and try and understand its security properties. > > thanks, > Lakshminath > > _______________________________________________ > KEYPROV mailing list > KEYPROV@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/keyprov _______________________________________________ KEYPROV mailing list KEYPROV@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/keyprov From keyprov-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 04 12:58:21 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Izc2H-0007eK-Pf; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 12:58:21 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Izc2G-0007ci-KK for keyprov@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 12:58:20 -0500 Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com ([128.222.32.20]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Izc2G-00082w-8j for keyprov@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 12:58:20 -0500 Received: from hop04-l1d11-si02.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI02.isus.emc.com [10.254.111.55]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.2.5/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id lB4HwH1o002983; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 12:58:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (nagas.lss.emc.com [10.254.144.11]) by hop04-l1d11-si02.isus.emc.com (Tablus Interceptor); Tue, 4 Dec 2007 12:58:17 -0500 Received: from rsana-ex-hq1.NA.RSA.NET (rsana-ex-hq1.na.rsa.net [10.100.8.50]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.2.5/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id lB4HvoIT019204; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 12:58:16 -0500 (EST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [KEYPROV] Interim Meeting Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 12:57:17 -0500 Message-ID: <017630AA6DF2DF4EBC1DD4454F8EE2970D6056DB@rsana-ex-hq1.NA.RSA.NET> In-Reply-To: <47550C7A.6020401@gmx.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [KEYPROV] Interim Meeting Thread-Index: Acg2mTJOxMhqXnveRdea9nnADZn2KwABY/rA References: <47550C7A.6020401@gmx.net> From: "Doherty, Andrea" To: "Hannes Tschofenig" , X-PMX-Version: 4.7.1.128075, Antispam-Engine: 2.5.1.298604, Antispam-Data: 2007.8.30.53115 X-PerlMx-Spam: Gauge=, SPAM=7%, Reasons='__CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __IMS_MSGID 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0' X-Tablus-Inspected: yes X-Tablus-Classifications: public X-Tablus-Action: allow X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 Cc: X-BeenThere: keyprov@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Provisioning of Symmetric Keys \(keyprov\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: keyprov-bounces@ietf.org Hannes,=20 I'm available end of Jan or beg of Feb. I prefer the East Coast (how about the Boston area?). Andrea -----Original Message----- From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net]=20 Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 3:15 AM To: keyprov@ietf.org Subject: [KEYPROV] Interim Meeting We believe it would be valuable to have an interim meeting to make=20 better progress on our documents. Proposal: end of Jan. 2008 - beginning of Feb. 2008 Location: US Please let us know if you are interested. Please also indicate * which location you prefer * what date would be beneficial for you. Ciao Hannes _______________________________________________ KEYPROV mailing list KEYPROV@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/keyprov _______________________________________________ KEYPROV mailing list KEYPROV@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/keyprov From keyprov-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 04 18:37:59 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzhKw-0004Cx-SG; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 18:37:58 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzhKv-0004C8-Sa for keyprov@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 18:37:57 -0500 Received: from smtp104.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.200.252]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzhKv-0007Jv-Go for keyprov@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 18:37:57 -0500 Received: (qmail 9759 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2007 23:37:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO Wylie) (turners@ieca.com@130.129.18.223 with login) by smtp104.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Dec 2007 23:37:56 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: m8lVFW4VM1nmshZlp4ir_tA58iWw8O9Y5FOZ36en3FKi8fSbPKuLu56gSiBNSQhtEsNXtEsHjKqih6iRvif06Rl6p.NHpTCPq2OGGysaiLBSgui4Nrc- From: "Turner, Sean P." To: "'Hannes Tschofenig'" , References: <47550C7A.6020401@gmx.net> Subject: RE: [KEYPROV] Interim Meeting Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 15:33:40 -0800 Organization: IECA, Inc. Message-ID: <005701c836ce$1c899280$df128182@Wylie> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: Acg2mTBm0hQUu6xKRy6EP33LkFqf4gANNjQw In-Reply-To: <47550C7A.6020401@gmx.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d Cc: X-BeenThere: keyprov@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Provisioning of Symmetric Keys \(keyprov\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: keyprov-bounces@ietf.org I am also available. >-----Original Message----- >From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net] >Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 12:15 AM >To: keyprov@ietf.org >Subject: [KEYPROV] Interim Meeting > >We believe it would be valuable to have an interim meeting to >make better progress on our documents. > >Proposal: end of Jan. 2008 - beginning of Feb. 2008 >Location: US > >Please let us know if you are interested. > >Please also indicate >* which location you prefer >* what date would be beneficial for you. > >Ciao >Hannes > > >_______________________________________________ >KEYPROV mailing list >KEYPROV@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/keyprov _______________________________________________ KEYPROV mailing list KEYPROV@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/keyprov From keyprov-bounces@ietf.org Thu Dec 06 16:37:32 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0OPS-0005S2-82; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 16:37:30 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0OPR-0005Rv-4u for keyprov@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 16:37:29 -0500 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0OPQ-0001yE-LH for keyprov@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 16:37:28 -0500 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 06 Dec 2007 21:37:26 -0000 Received: from dhcp-16c7.ietf70.org (EHLO [130.129.22.199]) [130.129.22.199] by mail.gmx.net (mp039) with SMTP; 06 Dec 2007 22:37:26 +0100 X-Authenticated: #29516787 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/IExNX7WDIj520dnDpKhM8PH1eu2GH7DLmOSg7Y4 t3B4IZ1SsZgJ8z Message-ID: <47586B96.1080402@gmx.net> Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:37:26 +0100 From: Hannes Tschofenig User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: keyprov@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d17f825e43c9aed4fd65b7edddddec89 Subject: [KEYPROV] Logo Types X-BeenThere: keyprov@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Provisioning of Symmetric Keys \(keyprov\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: keyprov-bounces@ietf.org During Ming's presentation we discussed Logo Types. The impression of the group was that we should move them into a separate specification. Objections? Ciao Hannes _______________________________________________ KEYPROV mailing list KEYPROV@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/keyprov From keyprov-bounces@ietf.org Thu Dec 06 16:37:39 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0OPb-0006HB-E2; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 16:37:39 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0OPZ-00068I-LG for keyprov@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 16:37:37 -0500 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0OPY-0003Yn-20 for keyprov@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 16:37:37 -0500 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 06 Dec 2007 21:37:34 -0000 Received: from dhcp-16c7.ietf70.org (EHLO [130.129.22.199]) [130.129.22.199] by mail.gmx.net (mp021) with SMTP; 06 Dec 2007 22:37:34 +0100 X-Authenticated: #29516787 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+2Z0c6lUa2k7esmFgvrJzPHpwFDOTjZqm/uiliMA TDoGoJhFOjOfP4 Message-ID: <47586B9E.3050807@gmx.net> Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:37:34 +0100 From: Hannes Tschofenig User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: keyprov@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3 Subject: [KEYPROV] Key Container Attributes X-BeenThere: keyprov@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Provisioning of Symmetric Keys \(keyprov\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: keyprov-bounces@ietf.org During Ming's presentation we also discussed the alignment between the XML and the ASN.1 key container. I see at least the following options: * Put the attributes/elements in both documents This would require to duplicate the description of the semantic, essentially. * Create one document that contains the attributes/elements. This document would be used by the XML-based and the ASN.1 based key container. Both approaches have pros and cons. Nevertheless we need to make a decision. NOW. PLEASE EXPRESS YOUR OPINION. Deadline: 17th December 2007 In any case, we need to describe the semantic of the attributes and elements better. Ciao Hannes _______________________________________________ KEYPROV mailing list KEYPROV@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/keyprov From keyprov-bounces@ietf.org Fri Dec 07 16:22:41 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0kea-0001d4-Rl; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 16:22:36 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0keZ-0001cp-J0 for keyprov@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 16:22:35 -0500 Received: from colibri.verisign.com ([65.205.251.74]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0keZ-0003gC-4g for keyprov@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 16:22:35 -0500 Received: from MOU1WNEXCN02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (mailer2.verisign.com [65.205.251.35]) by colibri.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id lB7LGqJF001678 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:16:52 -0800 Received: from MOU1WNEXMB10.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.25.13.204]) by MOU1WNEXCN02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:21:15 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:21:14 -0800 Message-ID: <3E5A2F1AD44F5E49A74F79AB47C0C0C96004EB@mou1wnexmb10.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> In-Reply-To: <475507D2.1030204@gmx.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: PIN policy issue Thread-Index: Acg2lkNYs33jARP0SFWc9yHmclSGIgCfd9ng From: "Pei, Mingliang" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Dec 2007 21:21:15.0974 (UTC) FILETIME=[19C9B660:01C83917] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17 Subject: [KEYPROV] PIN policy issue X-BeenThere: keyprov@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Provisioning of Symmetric Keys \(keyprov\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: keyprov-bounces@ietf.org =20 With regard to PIN policy, there was no object against the current proposal presented in the meeting. The feedback from the meeting is that we should keep it simple. We will further clarify what a "device" means. Thus this version of specification will just support the use cases that we have listed. - Leverage "Key" element to carry PIN value by treating PIN - Use PINPolicy and PINUsage in Key element to specify PIN related policy - PINPolicy will be applicable to a key. When a device contains multiple keys, each key defines its own PIN reference and policy. There will be no device level PIN policy - a device PIN would be unlock a software to access a key. Multiple keys may refer to the same PIN credential. Comments? - Ming > -----Original Message----- > From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net]=20 > Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 11:55 PM > To: keyprov@ietf.org > Subject: [KEYPROV] Meeting Minutes >=20 > Please take a look at the meeting minutes: > http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07dec/minutes/keyprov.pdf >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > KEYPROV mailing list > KEYPROV@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/keyprov >=20 _______________________________________________ KEYPROV mailing list KEYPROV@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/keyprov From keyprov-bounces@ietf.org Fri Dec 07 18:06:24 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0mH2-0006L3-DN; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 18:06:24 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0mH0-0006Km-U8 for keyprov@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 18:06:22 -0500 Received: from frhub1.activcard.fr ([91.151.120.133]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0mH0-00053u-HL for keyprov@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 18:06:22 -0500 Received: from sur-corp-ex-01.activcard.fr (unknown [192.168.33.28]) by frhub1.activcard.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6B1725ED3C; Sat, 8 Dec 2007 00:06:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from sur-corp-ex-02.corp.ad.activcard.com ([192.168.33.40]) by sur-corp-ex-01.activcard.fr with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2657.72) id WKH951F5; Sat, 8 Dec 2007 00:12:45 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [KEYPROV] Key Container Attributes Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 00:07:58 +0100 Message-ID: <5BFE9E473DBFC24CA87F18F29B3F0AC4FA2577@sur-corp-ex-02.corp.ad.activcard.com> In-Reply-To: <47586B9E.3050807@gmx.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [KEYPROV] Key Container Attributes Thread-Index: Acg4UIiXxX1dfdJcS0m/lIK1Kp0SKQA1VHbA References: <47586B9E.3050807@gmx.net> From: "Philip Hoyer" To: "Hannes Tschofenig" , X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cab78e1e39c4b328567edb48482b6a69 Cc: X-BeenThere: keyprov@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Provisioning of Symmetric Keys \(keyprov\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: keyprov-bounces@ietf.org What about my proposal? Put the definition in a clearly referenceable section of the MANDATORY container (PSKC). ASN.1 spec can then reference that section. Philip -----Original Message----- From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net]=20 Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 9:38 PM To: keyprov@ietf.org Subject: [KEYPROV] Key Container Attributes During Ming's presentation we also discussed the alignment between the=20 XML and the ASN.1 key container. I see at least the following options: * Put the attributes/elements in both documents This would require to duplicate the description of the semantic,=20 essentially. * Create one document that contains the attributes/elements. This document would be used by the XML-based and the ASN.1 based key=20 container. Both approaches have pros and cons. Nevertheless we need to make a=20 decision. NOW. PLEASE EXPRESS YOUR OPINION. Deadline: 17th December 2007 In any case, we need to describe the semantic of the attributes and=20 elements better. Ciao Hannes _______________________________________________ KEYPROV mailing list KEYPROV@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/keyprov _______________________________________________ KEYPROV mailing list KEYPROV@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/keyprov From keyprov-bounces@ietf.org Fri Dec 07 18:06:26 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0mH3-0006Ll-LV; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 18:06:25 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0mH2-0006Kw-7X for keyprov@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 18:06:24 -0500 Received: from frhub1.activcard.fr ([91.151.120.133]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0mH0-0004SO-HY for keyprov@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 18:06:24 -0500 Received: from sur-corp-ex-01.activcard.fr (unknown [192.168.33.28]) by frhub1.activcard.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 092A725ED3D; Sat, 8 Dec 2007 00:06:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from sur-corp-ex-02.corp.ad.activcard.com ([192.168.33.40]) by sur-corp-ex-01.activcard.fr with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2657.72) id WKH951F7; Sat, 8 Dec 2007 00:12:46 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [KEYPROV] PIN policy issue Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 00:06:30 +0100 Message-ID: <5BFE9E473DBFC24CA87F18F29B3F0AC4FA2578@sur-corp-ex-02.corp.ad.activcard.com> In-Reply-To: <3E5A2F1AD44F5E49A74F79AB47C0C0C96004EB@mou1wnexmb10.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [KEYPROV] PIN policy issue Thread-Index: Acg2lkNYs33jARP0SFWc9yHmclSGIgCfd9ngAARf4mA= References: <475507D2.1030204@gmx.net> <3E5A2F1AD44F5E49A74F79AB47C0C0C96004EB@mou1wnexmb10.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Philip Hoyer" To: "Pei, Mingliang" , X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 5a9a1bd6c2d06a21d748b7d0070ddcb8 Cc: X-BeenThere: keyprov@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Provisioning of Symmetric Keys \(keyprov\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: keyprov-bounces@ietf.org Sounds good. Covers all my known use cases. I would not worry about having to repeat the PINPolicy since multiple keys for a device will be most likely in the bulk provisioning case where the size does not matter that much. Philip -----Original Message----- From: Pei, Mingliang [mailto:mpei@verisign.com]=20 Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 9:21 PM To: keyprov@ietf.org Subject: [KEYPROV] PIN policy issue =20 With regard to PIN policy, there was no object against the current proposal presented in the meeting. The feedback from the meeting is that we should keep it simple. We will further clarify what a "device" means. Thus this version of specification will just support the use cases that we have listed. - Leverage "Key" element to carry PIN value by treating PIN - Use PINPolicy and PINUsage in Key element to specify PIN related policy - PINPolicy will be applicable to a key. When a device contains multiple keys, each key defines its own PIN reference and policy. There will be no device level PIN policy - a device PIN would be unlock a software to access a key. Multiple keys may refer to the same PIN credential. Comments? - Ming > -----Original Message----- > From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net]=20 > Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 11:55 PM > To: keyprov@ietf.org > Subject: [KEYPROV] Meeting Minutes >=20 > Please take a look at the meeting minutes: > http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07dec/minutes/keyprov.pdf >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > KEYPROV mailing list > KEYPROV@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/keyprov >=20 _______________________________________________ KEYPROV mailing list KEYPROV@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/keyprov _______________________________________________ KEYPROV mailing list KEYPROV@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/keyprov From keyprov-bounces@ietf.org Fri Dec 07 18:26:57 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0mas-0003TG-Si; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 18:26:54 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0mar-0003Hi-A4 for keyprov@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 18:26:53 -0500 Received: from colibri.verisign.com ([65.205.251.74]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0maq-0005tL-Ri for keyprov@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 18:26:53 -0500 Received: from MOU1WNEXCN02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (mailer2.verisign.com [65.205.251.35]) by colibri.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id lB7NJK3B005917; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 15:21:06 -0800 Received: from MOU1WNEXMB10.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.25.13.204]) by MOU1WNEXCN02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 7 Dec 2007 15:25:22 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [KEYPROV] Key Container Attributes Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 15:25:20 -0800 Message-ID: <3E5A2F1AD44F5E49A74F79AB47C0C0C960050B@mou1wnexmb10.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> In-Reply-To: <5BFE9E473DBFC24CA87F18F29B3F0AC4FA2577@sur-corp-ex-02.corp.ad.activcard.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [KEYPROV] Key Container Attributes Thread-Index: Acg4UIiXxX1dfdJcS0m/lIK1Kp0SKQA1VHbAAACbkqA= From: "Pei, Mingliang" To: "Philip Hoyer" , "Hannes Tschofenig" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Dec 2007 23:25:22.0282 (UTC) FILETIME=[702224A0:01C83928] X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: e8a67952aa972b528dd04570d58ad8fe Cc: X-BeenThere: keyprov@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Provisioning of Symmetric Keys \(keyprov\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: keyprov-bounces@ietf.org I like this proposal better. It is still shared and common to both but save to have two docs per spec. - Ming=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Philip Hoyer [mailto:philip.hoyer@actividentity.com]=20 > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 3:08 PM > To: Hannes Tschofenig; keyprov@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [KEYPROV] Key Container Attributes >=20 > What about my proposal? >=20 > Put the definition in a clearly referenceable section of the=20 > MANDATORY container (PSKC). ASN.1 spec can then reference=20 > that section. >=20 > Philip >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net] > Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 9:38 PM > To: keyprov@ietf.org > Subject: [KEYPROV] Key Container Attributes >=20 > During Ming's presentation we also discussed the alignment=20 > between the XML and the ASN.1 key container. >=20 > I see at least the following options: >=20 > * Put the attributes/elements in both documents This would=20 > require to duplicate the description of the semantic, essentially. >=20 > * Create one document that contains the attributes/elements. > This document would be used by the XML-based and the ASN.1=20 > based key container. >=20 > Both approaches have pros and cons. Nevertheless we need to=20 > make a decision. NOW. >=20 > PLEASE EXPRESS YOUR OPINION. >=20 > Deadline: 17th December 2007 >=20 > In any case, we need to describe the semantic of the=20 > attributes and elements better. >=20 > Ciao > Hannes >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > KEYPROV mailing list > KEYPROV@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/keyprov >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > KEYPROV mailing list > KEYPROV@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/keyprov >=20 _______________________________________________ KEYPROV mailing list KEYPROV@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/keyprov From keyprov-bounces@ietf.org Thu Dec 13 08:01:33 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2ngu-00005w-Cm; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:01:28 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2ngq-0008Vh-1I for keyprov@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:01:24 -0500 Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([192.100.122.230] helo=mgw-mx03.nokia.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2ngp-0002ba-Ed for keyprov@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:01:23 -0500 Received: from esebh107.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh107.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.143]) by mgw-mx03.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.6/Switch-3.2.6) with ESMTP id lBDD1KSk029537 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:01:21 +0200 Received: from esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.183]) by esebh107.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:01:10 +0200 Received: from esebe105.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.143.53]) by esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:01:10 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:01:14 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Comments about dkspp-01 Thread-Index: Acg9iD3AsaE7uUaBTNqZI/vYI7Zm9A== From: To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Dec 2007 13:01:10.0375 (UTC) FILETIME=[3B892770:01C83D88] X-Nokia-AV: Clean X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 538aad3a3c4f01d8b6a6477ca4248793 Subject: [KEYPROV] Comments about dkspp-01 X-BeenThere: keyprov@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Provisioning of Symmetric Keys \(keyprov\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: keyprov-bounces@ietf.org Some random comments about the dskpp-01 draft (not a review in=20 any sense): 1) Is there a difference between URL_S and ID_S? And between ID_C (mentioned only once in whole document) and ClientID?=20 2) There doesn't seem to be MACs covering all messages/payloads? Although the most critical elements seem to be included in some MACs, this certainly limits the future extensibility quite a bit. (Typically, in key exchange protocols the first messages don't have MACs, but once a key has been agreed on, it's used to MAC all the preceeding messages -- e.g. Finished messages in TLS and AUTH=20 payloads in IKEv2.) 3) Section 5.3.3: "The Authentication Data, AUTHDATA, may be derived from the AUTHCODE..." Is the intent to say "is derived", or are other ways of deriving AUTHDATA from AUTHCODE allowed? Similarly, earlier=20 in same section, is "The Issuer may generate the Authentication Code=20 as follows"; does this mean "is generated", or are other formats of authentication code allowed? (If these are example, it's hard to see how interoperability is achieved. If these are not examples, I have some more comments...) 4) Section 4.4, in KeyProvClientHello, is R_S optional? (If not, how it is known when Trigger is not used?) 5) At least the following references look normative to me: FIPS180-SHA, PKCS-1, PKCS-5, RFC2104, RFC2119. 6) Reference FSE2003 should probably be replaced by NIST SP 800-38B (although FSE2003 OMAC1 is "equivalent" to 800-38B CMAC from cryptography point-of-view, it looks like FSE2003 actually doesn't specify all the constants required to get interoperable implementations). 7) Appendix B.2, is this AES with 128-bit keys, or is the key length determined somehow from other context? 8) The message flows in Section 4 would be more readable if it was explicitly stated what information/state the parties are expected to have before the first message is sent. (This might include stuff needed by TLS as well.) Best regards, Pasi _______________________________________________ KEYPROV mailing list KEYPROV@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/keyprov