DataMuseum.dk

top - metrics - download

    Length: 4685 (0x124d)
    Types: TextFile
    Names: »catbof-minutes-91mar.txt«

└─⟦4f9d7c866⟧ Bits:30007245 EUUGD6: Sikkerheds distributionen
    └─⟦this⟧ »./papers/IETF-drafts/catbof-minutes-91mar.txt« 

TextFile

CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_



Reported by John Linn/DEC

CAT BOF Minutes

A Birds of a Feather session met on Common Authentication Technology
(CAT) at the March meeting; the first formal CAT Working Group meeting
will take place at the July IETF. At the March BOF, Jeff Schiller and
John Linn presented material on CAT concepts and responded to questions
from attendees.

CAT's goal is to provide security services to a range of IETF protocol
callers in a manner which insulates those callers from the specifics of
underlying cryptographic security mechanisms, enabling modular
separation between protocol and security implementation activities.
Agreement on common security service interface characteristics, token
representations, and other protocol integration issues, as well as
discussion of individual mechanisms, falls within this Working Group's
Charter.  Two IETF applications protocol Working Groups (Telnet and
Network Printing) are currently seeking to employ CAT-related
techniques.

There was some controversy about mechanism type negotiation as
contemplated by the Telnet security proposals.  One observation:  It's
necessary to intersect two peers' notions of acceptable mechanisms, not
for a client to accept any (however weak) which may be offered by a
server.  A belief was voiced that few servers would support more than a
single mechanism, and/but that clients would often have to support
multiple mechanisms to conform with their desired set of target servers;
cases of single-mechanism clients communicating with multi-mechanism
servers are also possible.  While it was widely agreed that the world
would be a better and more interoperable place if and when only one
mechanism was in general use, there was a sense that ambidextrous hosts
were unavoidable and would have to be accommodated.  The Assigned
Numbers RFC was proposed as a ``registry'' vehicle for mechanism type
specifiers to be used in the Internet.

Interest was expressed in means to allow protection of data carried in
stream-oriented protocols as well as in message-oriented protocols,
whether by definition of stream-oriented security services interfaces or
by (direct or mediated) provision of session keys to callers.  There was
debate about the merits of modeling protected password exchanges as CAT
authentication mechanisms.  In subsequent Security Area Advisory Group
(SAAG) discussion, it was agreed that mechanisms performing key
exchange, and hence constituting a basis for confidentiality and
integrity protection for messages as well as authentication, should be
emphasized.

                                   1
\f







The CAT activity will be supported with a family of documents, to be
provided from different sources.  A high-level Generic Security Service
Application Program Interface (GSSAPI) specification will be submitted
to the Internet-Draft process in advance of the July IETF meeting, and
will be followed by a separate document defining a set of C language
bindings therefore.  Organizations defining particular security
mechanisms (e.g., SPX, Kerberos) will submit separate mechanism-specific
documents, supporting independently developed yet interoperable
implementations of those mechanisms.  CAT participants will pursue
design refinements, protocol integration, and implementation activities,
and will continue consulting liaison activities with IETF protocol
Working Groups which are prospective clients for CAT-provided security
services.

Attendees

Warren Benson            wbenson@zeus.unomaha.edu
Randy Butler             rbutler@ncsa.uiuc.edu
Vinton Cerf              vcerf@NRI.Reston.VA.US
Martina Chan             mchan@mot.com
Stephen Crocker          crocker@tis.com
Jeffrey Edelheit         edelheit@smiley.mitre.org
Barbara Fraser           byf@cert.sei.cmu.edu
Shawn Gallagher          gallagher@quiver.enet.dec.com
James Galvin             galvin@tis.com
Tom Grant                grant@xylogics.com
Neil Haller              nmh@bellcore.com
Russ Hobby               rdhobby@ucdavis.edu
Joel Jacobs              jdj@mitre.org
Ajay Kachrani            kachrani@regent.enet.dec.com
Philip Karn              karn@thumper.bellcore.com
John Linn                ULTRA::LINN
Mike Little              little@ctt.bellcore.com
Stephanie Price          price@cmc.com
Michael Reilly           reilly@pa.dec.com
George Sanderson         sanderson@mdc.com
Tim Seaver               tas@mcnc.org
Sam Sjogren              sjogren@tgv.com
Michael St.  Johns       stjohns@umd5.umd.edu
William Townsend         townsend@xylogics.com
Glenn Trewitt            trewitt@pa.dec.com
Daniel Weidman           weidman@wudos2.wustl.edu



                                   2