Handover Keying (HOKEY) Architecture Design
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <email@example.com> To: IETF-Announce <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: RFC Editor <email@example.com>, hokey mailing list <firstname.lastname@example.org>, hokey chair <email@example.com> Subject: Document Action: 'Handover Keying (HOKEY) Architecture Design' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-hokey-arch-design-11.txt) The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Handover Keying (HOKEY) Architecture Design' (draft-ietf-hokey-arch-design-11.txt) as an Informational RFC This document is the product of the Handover Keying Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Stephen Farrell and Sean Turner. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hokey-arch-design/
Technical Summary The Handover Keying (HOKEY) Working Group seeks to minimize handover delay due to authentication when a peer moves from one point of attachment to another. Work has been progressed on two different approaches to reduce handover delay: early authentication (so that authentication does not need to be performed during handover), and reuse of cryptographic material generated during an initial authentication to save time during re-authentication. A starting assumption is that the mobile host or "peer" is initially authenticated using the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP), executed between the peer and an EAP server as defined in RFC 3748. This document specifies the HOKEY architecture. Specifically, it describes design objectives, the functional environment within which handover keying operates, the functions to be performed by the HOKEY architecture itself, and the assignment of those functions to architectural components. It goes on to illustrate the operation of the architecture within various deployment scenarios that are described more fully in other documents produced by the HOKEY Working Group. Working Group Summary The document is a product of the Hokey working group. The document has working group consensus. Document Quality The document provides the guideline for implementors to use different functions, components and protocol summarized in this document to adapt to different usage scenarios and situations and is therefore not subject to implementation. Also this document has gotten sufficient review from people with both OPS and Security background. The quality of the document is good. Personnel Tina Tsou is the document shepherd Stephen Farrell is the responsible AD.