I agree with Lakshminath on this.
________________________________
From: Lakshminath Dondeti [mailto:ldondeti(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com]
Sent: Wed 4/11/2007 11:03 PM
To: Sam Hartman
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; Bernard Aboba; emu(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
nicolas(_dot_)williams(_at_)sun(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [Emu] Last call comments:
draft-williams-on-channel-binding-01.txt: EAP channel bindings
Hi Sam,
Here is my take on this topic:
After having reviewed "draft-williams-on-channel-binding-01," I feel
that putting EAP in scope of that document would require a rather
involved revision of the document. As Charles noted it might require
further abstraction of the concept of channel binding as defined in
draft-williams.
Now, I must say, I do see the similarities between the two notions of
channel binding. But the EAP/AAA model is unique and it is not easy to
map it to the other, let's say simpler, security models. The notion of
compound binding or crypto binding also has some similarities to the
notion of channel binding in draft-williams-on-channel-binding-01, but
there are also some differences.
Overall though, since expanding draft-williams-on-channel-binding-01's
scope to EAP means that the requirements, recommendations and
suggestions of Section 2.1 may be applied to EAP channel binding, it
would be a rather painful exercise to sort it all out. For now, I am
comfortable with the guidance in Section 7.15 of 3748.
thanks,
Lakshminath
Sam Hartman wrote:
Hi.
For the last couple of years, we've been believing that EAP and GSS
used the term channel bindings inconsistently. For those of us
dealing with both, it's been a bit annoying.
I've been thinking about EAP a lot lately. and have come to the
conclusion that actually the terms are used consistently.
I'd like to see if people agree with the following change to Nico's channel
binding draft:
old:
Also unfortunately there is a conflict with the Extensible
Authentication Protocol (EAP) [RFC3748] which uses "channel binding"
to refer to a facility that is subtly different from the one
described here. (It does not seem feasible to adopt new terminology
to avoid these problems now. The GSS-API, NFSv4 and other
communities have been using the terms "channel binding" and "channel
bindings" in these ways for a long time, sometimes with variations
such as "channel binding facility" and so on.)
new:
The Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) [RFC3748] includes two
facilities related to channel binding. The first, called channel
binding, is used to bind the lower-layer channel created between the
peer and the authenticator to the authentication performed using EAP.
Specific detials of this facility have not been specified, but it is
likely that this channel would use endpoint channel bindings carried
in the EAP method exchange. The endpoint channel bindings would be
defined for the specific lower layer. EAP also has a facility called
cryptographic binding, which is another instance of channel binding.
Cryptographic binding refers to binding the channel created by a
tunneling EAP method to an inner authentication performed within that
method. Cryptographic binding will likely use unique channel
bindings.
Do these changes make sense to people? Am I telling any lies or
conflating two architectures in a bad way?
_______________________________________________
Emu mailing list
Emu(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf