Re: [Dime] Comments on abstract and section 1 of new version draft-ietf-dime-erp-01

[Sebastien Decugis <sdecugis at nict.go.jp>]

Hello Qin,

Thank you for the detailed review. Please find my comments inline. Sorry
for my late answer.


> Abstract
> [Qin]:ERP authenticator and ERP server seems new terminologies, I am
> wondering
> whether we need to define these terminologies in the document?
> Actually as
> described in RFC5296, ER Server relevant to ERP server has already been
> defined, Is it necessary to define the same thing?
You are right, we must use consistent terminology with RFC5296. I will
change "ERP server" to "ER server" and replace "EAP/ERP authenticator"
with "Compatible authenticator". Do you agree with these changes?


> [Qin]: I agree implicit bootstrapping is not Re-authentication. However
> I am wondering whether explicit bootstrapping can still be viewed as
> Re-authentication?
> So whether dividing ERP into two step will cause a little confusion?
Explicit bootstrapping in a kind of special case: the re-authentication
happens between peer and home ER server, and also carries the key
material for the local ER server. Therefore it is a "step 2" for the
home server and "step 1" for the local server. In any case, the home
server must already be bootstrapped -- or collocated with the EAP
server, as we currently assume, and derive the key when it is needed.
But from a process point of view, I believe these two separate steps
still apply to any ERP exchange -- only the timing may be different with
some scenarios. Does this clarify the text?


Sebastien.

-- 
Sebastien Decugis
Research fellow
Network Architecture Group
NICT (nict.go.jp)