Re: [STDS-802-16] [STDS-802-16-MOBILE] [security] PKM-EAP Pair Mismatch
Hi, Jeff!
Had a plesant trip back to your home? I'm still suffering from a little jet
lag.
Couple of days I thought of just deleting entire PKM bi-directional text
from my contribution and resubmit just the one EAP-Transfer text portion.
But last night, one question poped into my mind. I remember you objected my
contribution because you insisted that EAP-Request may come from MSS side.
But as I explained during presentation session at Portland, RFC 2284(see
below excerpted text) clearly specifies that EAP-Request is sent by the
AUTHENTICATOR to the peer. Not by MSS to BS. And still changing PKM to be
bi-directional does not harm anything to the standard and does not incur
backward compatibility problem.
So please re-consider my contribution again and reply me. RSVP
My best regards,
*********************************************************
4.1 Request and Response
Description
The Request packet (Code field set to 1) is sent by the
authenticator to the peer. Each Request has a Type field which
serves to indicate what is being requested. Additional Request
packets MUST be sent until a valid Response packet is received, or
an optional retry counter expires.
----- Original Message -----
From: "galahad" <galahad@netsgo.com>
To: <jmandin@warpmail.net>
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 8:26 AM
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16-MOBILE] [security] PKM-EAP Pair Mismatch
> Maybe you're right that this is NOT a problem from the perspective of MAC
> design. But if a person who is new to IEEE 802.16e standard have a look at
> it, he might be uncomfortable with that. Because of that pair mismatch. I
> mean we can make it more elaborate than before, but why stay with current
> one which is not pretty and awkward.
>
> And I don't see any reason of my solution introduces inconsistencies
between
> EAP-transfer and the other PKM messages. Could you explain this in more
> detail, pls?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <jmandin@warpmail.net>
> To: "galahad" <galahad@netsgo.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 7:43 AM
> Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16-MOBILE] [security] PKM-EAP Pair Mismatch
>
>
> > Donnie,
> >
> > Essentially: Messages from the SS to the BS are contained in
> > PKM-Requests; messages in the other direction are contained in
> > PKM-Responses. The fact that the message inside a Response happens to
> > be called an EAP-Request is not interesting as far as the correctness of
> > our MAC design is concerned.
> >
> > EAP-Transfer-Request means "upstream direction EAP transfer", and
> > doesn't relate to the content of the EAP message.
> >
> > So the problem isn't really a problem; and the solution introduces
> > inconsistencies between EAP-transfer and the
> > other PKM messages.
> >
> > One clarification that occurs to me is the PKMId field for EAP-transfer
> > messages should really be 0, as there is no such thing as correlation of
> > requests and responses (since it's all transparent).
> >
> > If you'd like to talk about it, then please feel free.
> >
> > BR,
> >
> > - Jeff
> >
> > On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 06:54:48 +0900, "galahad" <galahad@netsgo.com> said:
> > > About "C80216e-04_049r6 Bi-directional PKM messages for EAP
> > > messages", could you reiterate what was the reason of rejection?
> > >
> > > Do you want to leave current text as it is or want some
> > > modification
> > > to my contribution?
> > >
> > >
> > > I'd appreciate your reply.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > ==================================
> > > Donnie Dongkie Lee
> > > Seorindong 99, JongRoGu
> > > Seoul, Korea
> > > SK Telecom
> > > Phone: +82-2-6323-3147
> > > Mobile: +82-11-758-4359
> > > E-Mail: galahad@nate.com
> > > galahad@netsgo.com
> > > ============================
> > --
> >
> > jmandin@warpmail.net
> >
> >
> >
> >
>