[anonsec] BTNS updates

[Nicolas.Williams at sun.com (Nicolas Williams)]

On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 11:49:46AM -0600, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> >>>>> "Nicolas" == Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams at sun.com> writes:
>     Nicolas>  - Nodes that wish to be treated as BTNS nodes by their peers
>     Nicolas> should generate a self-signed cert with a randomized DN.
> 
>   Can you be more specific?

Do I have to be?

>     Nicolas> We did discuss channel bindings, however.  Channel bindings do
>     Nicolas> presume connection latching, which we did not work out in
>     Nicolas> detail, but nonetheless we think that for SAs authenticated with
>     Nicolas> public key signatures the channel bindings for latched
>     Nicolas> connections will be the public key values of the two peers.
> 
>   Directly? Or concatenation of hashes of public keys? 
>   What order?

No, not directly, a bit of structure may be necessary, and a canonical
order is necessary (there can be only two, so let's pick one).

>   Will we write a single description of a channel binding "blob", or will
> this be application defined? 

We will write a single description in a separate document (most likely).

>   If there are two connections between peers, such as, in some cases, two NFS
> mounts, but certainly if I used channel binding for two SSH connections for
> which I had a (probably-non-btns) /32<->/32 tunnel, would both instances see
> the same binding data?

Most often, yes, but not necessarily.

Nico
--