Based on the responses on this thread and in the IETF 105 EMU meeting we
are going to accept this document as a working group item.
Cheers,
Joe
On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 1:55 PM Alan DeKok
wrote:
> On Jun 27, 2019, at 12:51 PM, Joseph Salowey wrote:
> >
> > Significant time has passed and no al
On Jun 27, 2019, at 12:51 PM, Joseph Salowey wrote:
>
> Significant time has passed and no alternate proposals have surfaced. We
> need to decide whether to accept this document into the working group or not.
> It seems that we have support for the view that working on this
> informational d
Significant time has passed and no alternate proposals have surfaced. We
need to decide whether to accept this document into the working group or
not. It seems that we have support for the view that working on this
informational document in the working group is preferable to the
independent submi
I think it is of utter importance that PFS for AKA gets published and deployed.
The great SIM heist was a disaster for cellular security. The extension of the
heist is not known, and the report from Gemalto was a joke trying to sweep
thing under the rug. Potentially billions of secret keys where
John Mattsson wrote:
>> I was always very sad that AKA did not get more uptake as it
authenticates
>> the network to the phone, and therefore would have (as I understand
things)
>> defended against "Stingray" like equipment used without judicial review,
>> requiring interceptors
Michael,
Thanks for your comments.
A couple of responses: with regards to deployment, there’s some amount of EAP
SIM/AKA deployment, but until now it hasn’t been for the primary mobile network
access. It was only used for Wireless LANs when you have a SIM card.
Nevertheless, both protocols are
On Apr 3, 2019, at 1:37 AM, Joseph Salowey wrote:
>
> Thanks for reviving this thread. I agree this is important work, but we need
> to have consensus to bring the item into the working group. I think the IPR
> issue is the main sticking point.
>
> I'll note that RFC 5448 has a similar IPR
Michael Richardson wrote:
>I implemented server side EAP-SIM and EAP-AKA back 16 some years ago.
>Based upon the many emails I got asking for help configuring EAP-SIM, and
>the zero I got for EAP-AKA, I have never been sure to what extend AKA
>really go out there. Is the nano-SIM in my phone SIM
Thanks for reviving this thread. I agree this is important work, but we
need to have consensus to bring the item into the working group. I think
the IPR issue is the main sticking point.
I'll note that RFC 5448 has a similar IPR declaration and both documents
are targeted as informational. Som
Alan DeKok wrote:
> Let's be realistic about the IETF. While we pretend that we have
> individual contributors, the reality is that large companies fund huge
> chunks of it. Those companies effectively shield individual
> contributors from patent lawsuits. i.e. no one will su
On Mar 29, 2019, at 4:57 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> I followed the link to the IPR page, but I have not (and won't) read the
> patent. Having read the pseudo code in section 6.3, I can't see how it's
> significantly different than IKEv2. If there is something novel here, I
> don't know what
Joseph Salowey wrote:
> that consensus. If you do not support adoption of
> draft-arkko-eap-aka-pfs-03.txt as WG item please say so by 2359UTC on
> 30 November 2018 (and say why).
I don't think that this was decided.
At least, I did not find a message about this in the archives!
I
12 matches
Mail list logo
