Hi Alan,
Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote:
Ask yourself: Is there indeed a problem with transferring the “long”
public keys (of the client, as you state below)?
I've seen this be a problem when the long keys require too many round
trips. ~20K of data, or ~20 round trips
I am looking forward to the discussion.
I care about implementation specific aspects, particularly if they hide
some underlying problems.
-Original Message-
From: emu-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:emu-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
ext Sam Hartman
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 5:33 PM
Hi Violeta,
What problem are you trying to solve with this EAP method?
Ciao
Hannes
-Original Message-
From: emu-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:emu-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
ext Cakulev, Violeta (Violeta)
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 10:16 PM
To: emu@ietf.org
Subject: [Emu]
Very nice writeup, Joe.
You might want to point out to them that they can develop EAP methods
and publish them as informational documents without any special reaon or
new set of requirements even if other EAP methods already provide
similar functionality.
-Original Message-
From:
Hi Bernard,
here is my guess of the background of all this work.
Imagine a company has worked on strong password based authentication and
key exchange protocols. That company might also believe that they have
some IPRs in this field.
Now, some folks in that company would like to get their
There are 3 parties in the AAA/EAP exchange. Not every party is
authenticated in the exchange (e.g. the NAS/AAA client is not
authenticated by the EAP peer) -- there is only key confirmation taking
place.
The NAS can therefore report different identities to the EAP client and
to the AAA server.
Hi Joe,
The idea of defining one payload format for carrying information in EAP
methods sounds useful.
Then, someone only has to define something once and it is available (at
least from a specification point of view) in all EAP methods.
In practice, this obviously requires code changes and
Here are a few random review comments.
Section 3.2: Terminology
The definition of PFS does not correspond to the crypto literature. Here
is the definition from the Handbook of applied cryptography:
12.16 Definition A protocol is said to have perfect forward secrecy if
compromise of long-term
-
Von: ext Sam Hartman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 3. April 2007 17:40
An: Tschofenig, Hannes
Cc: Hannes Tschofenig; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; emu@ietf.org
Betreff: Re: AW: [Emu] Re: Next Steps on Passwd-based EAP Methods
Tschofenig, == Tschofenig, Hannes
[EMAIL PROTECTED
Hi Lakshminath,
I am not sure that the group wants to use CCM.
(If you are referring to this part of your mail.)
Ciao
Hannes
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Lakshminath Dondeti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 22. August 2006 11:44
An: Hannes Tschofenig
Cc:
10 matches
Mail list logo