SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


    [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

    RE: iSCSI: U=<user> in Authentication



    
    Paul,
    
    The implementers are sent to the relevant RFC for the definition of each
    authentication method, so the clearest way in my opinion was to use the
    exact keys
    as appeared in the RFCs (with a simple statement e.g. -
    "Where N, g, s, A, B, M, and H(A | M | K) are defined in [RFC2945]"   ).
    
    I don't think, as Steve doesn't, that there is a real parsing problem since
    these
    keys are authentication method's specific (and you know where you are at
    that point).
    
       Regards,
         Ofer
    
    
    Ofer Biran
    Storage and Systems Technology
    IBM Research Lab in Haifa
    biran@il.ibm.com  972-4-8296253
    
    
    "CONGDON,PAUL (HP-Roseville,ex1)" <paul_congdon@hp.com>@ece.cmu.edu on
    19/09/2001 20:12:37
    
    Please respond to "CONGDON,PAUL (HP-Roseville,ex1)" <paul_congdon@hp.com>
    
    Sent by:  owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu
    
    
    To:   John Hufferd/San Jose/IBM@IBMUS, Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL,
          Ofer_Biran/Haifa/IBM <Ofer_Biran/Haifa/IBM@us.ibm.com>,
          mbakke@cisco.com, jtseng@NishanSystems.com
    cc:   ips@ece.cmu.edu
    Subject:  RE: iSCSI: U=<user> in Authentication
    
    
    
    
    I agree that more clarification regarding how to associate SCSI Names with
    user identities should be provided.  I'm not sure if I agree that it should
    be possible to omit the names entirely - however.  This would provide
    another optional way to approach the exchange (may provide or may not)
    which
    adds complexity to this portion of the code, more test cases, more
    unnecessary options, etc..  As you've mentioned it may also be different
    depending upon the authentication method in use. There is certainly room
    for
    improvement here.
    
    I have a bit of a gripe about the key=value pairs during authentication
    phase in general.  First of all, the key names are not very descriptive,
    which defeats the purpose of using Text keys in the first place (in my
    opinion).  Secondly and more importantly, there are key values that are not
    unique and depend upon what authentication method is in progress in order
    to
    decode/parse them.  For example, A=5 in CHAP for algorithm selection is
    completely different that A=2345 in SRP.  Also N=initiatorName in CHAP is
    totally different than N=5678 in SRP.   It would be much easier if the text
    command parser didn't have to consider what authentication method was
    running and that all key values were unique.  Thus I propose making the
    following name changes to CHAP and SRP key values.  I'm not too concerned
    about the exact key names used, just that they are somewhat descriptive and
    unique.
    
    CHAP Key Values
    
    Old         New
    ---         --------
    A           ChapAlgorithm
    I           ChapID
    N           ChapUser
    C           ChapChallenge
    R           ChapResponse
    
    
    SRP Key Values
    
    Old       New
    ---       ---
    U         SrpUser
    N         SrpSafePrime
    g         SrpGenerator
    s         SrpSalt
    A         SrpPubKeyA
    B         SrpPubKeyB
    M         SrpSessionKey
    HM        SrpKeyProof
    
    Paul
    
    +------------------------------------------+
    Paul Congdon
    HP ProCurve Networking
    Hewlett Packard Company
    8000 Foothills Blvd - M/S 5662
    Roseville, CA   95747
    phone: 916-785-5753
    email: paul_congdon@hp.com
    +------------------------------------------+
    
    
    


Home

Last updated: Thu Sep 20 13:17:17 2001
6631 messages in chronological order