Hi, Sam:
I can meet with you and Dacheng either during Monday lunch or first
afternoon session to discuss the options. Thanks.
On 3/19/12 3:00 PM, Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu wrote:
Dear Hao:
I was pleased to hear your analysis of areas where mutual crypto binding
may be tricky to deploy because I would like to accurately describe this
problem space. I believe the draft covers most of the points you raise
but I will definitely incorporate your feedback.
I was a bit frustrated though that you proposed simply focusing on
certificate validation without responding to the concerns that the draft
raises in that area because I put a fair bit of time into analyzing
that problem space and I was hoping to try and explain that there are no
easy answers. I hear that you are concerned about the complexity of
EMSK-based cryptographic binding; I'm guessing you'd like to make rapid
progress on your draft.
However I'm concerned when I think we may be discarding an option like
EMSK-based cryptographic binding in favor of an option that we believe
doesn't cover a number of deployments that we've decided in our
requirements analysis are important to us.
I think both of our options have merit.
Would you be willing to get together with me and Dacheng before the EMU
meeting to work on a design for EMSK-based cryptographic binding in your
method and to work on understanding what's required to get the most out
of certificate binding? I'd like to have a well-informed discussion
about the complexity of EMSK-based cryptographic binding, the discussion
of complexity of certificate validation and the environments where they
can both function. I'd appreciate your help in getting to that point!
I'd also be interested in working with anyone else on this problem.
Currently I'm available Monday morning, Monday during lunch, Monday
during the first afternoon session. It also looks like I have a fair bit
of availability Tuesday.
___
Emu mailing list
Emu@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
