| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hello, I am unable to make the call on Thursday but if I was on it I would voice support for option 2 on slide 7. So if you're polling the group, add me to that bucket. If you want to make option 2 be a single call, the KDK is already a cryptographically strong key (uniformly random as a result of the PRF that generated it) and the "extract" step can be skipped. There's a discussion of this in RFC 5869
in section 3.3. So it could become: rPMKID = HKDF-Expand(KDK, "rPMKID expansion", 16) Observing that 16 is most likely smaller than the size of the underlying hash function that HKDF is implemented with, the difference between option 1 and an "expand only" option 2 is mostly aesthetic.
But I do like the idea of binding the old PMKID to the new one so unless there's heartburn over the two-step derivation I'd vote to keep option 2 as is.
regards, Dan. -- "the object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." – Marcus Aurelius On 10/19/21, 7:08 AM, "M Montemurro" <montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: Hi Carol and all, I'd like to request agenda time on Thursday's call to present the following contribution: Cheers, Mike To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBI list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBI&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBI list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBI&A=1 |