"Zero knowledge" is definitely crypto-intensive. For example, to get both privacy and strong password protection, at least two DHs are required.
However, there are circumstances where server-side certificates aren't acceptable. Even in today, many/(most?) EAP deployments do not involve certificates (e.g. LEAP, FAST). Even if "zero knowledge" isn't used on an ongoing basis (out of concern for load, for example), it still can be useful for initial provisioning. For example, EAP FAST provisioning is vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attack or dictionary attack, which could be removed with use of "zero knowledge" algorithms. Subject: AW: [Emu] EMU Charter revision Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:34:56 +0100 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; emu@ietf.org Hi Bernard, a question your excitment regarding strong password based EAP method. Why do you think they are useful? There are other ways (and they are deployed already) that can accomplish the same result without going along the SRP & co track. Is it because you expect performance improvements or because the crypto-mechanisms look nicer? I cannot quite understand the motivation. Ciao Hannes Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von ext Bernard Aboba Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. Februar 2008 21:54 An: emu@ietf.org Betreff: Re: [Emu] EMU Charter revision I also do NOT approve of the current charter revision, for several reasons: a. The Charter text contains statements that are no longer true. For example: "Most of these methods are proprietary methods and only a few methods are documented in RFCs." The following EAP methods are now documented in RFCs: EAP-TLS (RFC 2716) EAP-SIM (RFC 4186) EAP-AKA (RFC 4187) EAP-PAX (RFC 4746) EAP-SAKE (RFC 4763) EAP-PSK (RFC 4764) EAP-POTP (RFC 4793) EAP-FAST (RFC 4851) EAP-IKEv2 (RFC 5106) 9 methods claiming to satify RFC 4017 critieria is more than a "few". b. The Charter requires support for Channel Bindings without doing the preparatory work to define how Channel Bindings works. Either the requirement should be removed, or a work item should be added to better define the approach to Channel Bindings. c. The text on tunnel methods does not provide enough guidance to avoid potentially fruitless arguments. So far, the EMU WG has not been able to come to consensus on selection of one of the existing tunneling protocols, and efforts to design "yet another" tunneling protocol haven't gotten very far either. I'd like to see more specific language that would make it clear that work on improving existing tunneling protocols is within scope, and also that the EMU WG, if it cannot come to consensus on a single protocol, can proceed to work on one or more protocols with significant support. d. Password-based methods. While I can understand the desire to limit the number of charter items, I do agree with Dan that work on weak-password methods is important. With some of the IPR obstacles likely to fall by the wayside in coming years, it is time for the IETF to re-visit its policy on inclusion of "zero knowledge" algorithms within standards track documents. Dan Harkins said: " Hi Joe, I do NOT approve of the current charter revision, specifically the change that says the password-based method can only be via the tunneled method. I do approve of the inclusion of tunneled methods in the charter though and would be willing to contribute as a reviewer. regards, Dan." On Tue, February 19, 2008 11:14 am, Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) wrote: > The response to the charter revision has been underwhelming. I am a bit > concerned that we do not have enough participation to complete the > tunnel method work (most of the recent discussion has been about other > methods). > > I would like to get an idea of the number working group members that > approve of working on the tunnel method items and are able to > participate in the development of requirements and specifications as > contributors and/or reviewers. > > Please respond to this message and state whether you approve of the > current charter revision and what capacity you would be willing to > contribute towards tunneled method development: contributor, reviewer or > not able to contribute. > > I have submitted an internet draft attempt at an outline of requirements > for tunneled methods > (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-salowey-emu-eaptunnel-req-00. > txt) that I hope can provided a starting point for discussions on the > list and in the Philadelphia meeting. > > Thanks, > > Joe
_______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
