On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 13:03:40 -0500
"Blumenthal, Uri - 0662 - MITLL" wrote:
> I see value in adding a simpler-than-EAP method, and support this
> effort. But overall it's an extremely difficult task because of IPR.
>
> I personally would hate to see a patent-encumbered solution - and
> that would
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 12:12:19 -0800 (PST)
"Dan Harkins" wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> There are other criteria that should be evaluated in making a
> decision, such as how well does the solution fits into IKE(v2) and
> does it support "crypto agility".
>
There are certainly many things that need to
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 16:48:07 -0800 (PST)
"Dan Harkins" wrote:
>
> Hi David,
>
>
> On Tue, March 2, 2010 3:49 pm, black_da...@emc.com wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > OTOH, I think you've oversimplified here ...
> >
> >> The candidate exchanges all rely on the "hard problem" of doing a
> >> discrete
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 09:30:53 -0500
"Blumenthal, Uri - 0662 - MITLL" wrote:
> A reasonable question is - do all the proposed "EKE variations" have
> the same requirement (and the same weakness)? Or only the original
> EKE does?
>
I'm not sure what you mean by "EKE variants" -- all of the variants
