Re: [802.21] [clancy@xxxxxxxxxx: [HOKEY] preauth discussion]
If Hokey does indeed go down this particular path, the resulting
guidelines/recommendations would be useful in guiding the work of
802.21, but that also means that 802.21 would probably have to develop
the actual pre-authentication protocol, rather than just referring to
an external specification.
On 7/25/07, Yoshihiro Ohba <yohba@tari.toshiba.com> wrote:
> FYI. The work would be important for Security SG in 802.21.
>
> Yoshihiro Ohba
>
>
> ----- Forwarded message from Charles Clancy <clancy@cs.umd.edu> -----
>
> X-VirusChecked: Checked
> X-Env-Sender: hokey-bounces@ietf.org
> X-Msg-Ref: server-14.tower-94.messagelabs.com!1185396605!60176034!1
> X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.11; banners=-,-,-
> X-Originating-IP: [156.154.16.145]
> X-SpamReason: No, hits=0.0 required=7.0 tests=
> From: Charles Clancy <clancy@cs.umd.edu>
> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5 (Windows/20070716)
> To: hokey@ietf.org
> X-CSD-MailScanner-Information: Please email staff@cs.umd.edu for more
> information
> X-CSD-MailScanner: Found to be clean
> X-CSD-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached,
> score=-4.399, required 5, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -1.80,
> BAYES_00 -2.60)
> X-CSD-MailScanner-From: clancy@cs.umd.edu
> X-Spam-Status: No
> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
> X-Scan-Signature: 08170828343bcf1325e4a0fb4584481c
> Subject: [HOKEY] preauth discussion
> X-BeenThere: hokey@ietf.org
> X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
> List-Id: HOKEY WG Mailing List <hokey.ietf.org>
> List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hokey>,
> <mailto:hokey-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/hokey>
> List-Post: <mailto:hokey@ietf.org>
> List-Help: <mailto:hokey-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hokey>,
> <mailto:hokey-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
> X-UIDL: a;l"!9M`"!eh(!!B\,!!
>
> During the WG meeting, there seemed to be support for simply developing
> recommendations for pre-authentication in the HOKEY working group, and
> not an actual protocol. Tim agrees that this could be done without
> modifying our deliverables or milestones, given the current charter wording.
>
> Is there any objection to taking this route?
>
> Assuming we pursue this route, are there volunteers to work on a design
> team for developing a -00 document on pre-authentication?
>
> Please respond by August 8th.
>
> --
> t. charles clancy, ph.d. <> tcc@umd.edu <> eng.umd.edu/~tcc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> HOKEY mailing list
> HOKEY@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hokey
>
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
>
--
Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin
Principal Engineer
Corporate Standardization (US)
SISA