HOKEYNetwork Working Group J. Salowey Internet-Draft Cisco Systems Intended status: Standards Track L. Dondeti Expires: December 23, 2007May 21, 2008 V. Narayanan Qualcomm, Inc M. Nakhjiri Huawei USA June 21,Motorola November 18, 2007 Specification for the Derivation of Root Keys from an Extended Master Session Key (EMSK) draft-ietf-hokey-emsk-hierarchy-01.txtdraft-ietf-hokey-emsk-hierarchy-02.txt Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 23, 2007.May 21, 2008. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). Abstract An Extended Master Session Key (EMSK) is a cryptographic key generated from an Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) exchange reserved solely for the purpose of deriving master keys for one or more purposes identified as usage definitions. This memo specifies a mechanism for avoiding conflicts between root keys by deriving cryptographically separate keys from the EMSK. This document also describes a usage for domain specific root keys made available to and used within specific administrativekey management domains. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Cryptographic Separation and Coordinated Key Derivation . . . 4 3. EMSK Key Root Derivation Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 3.1. USRK Derivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2. The USRK Derivation Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 3.3. Default PRF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.4. Key Naming and Usage Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Domain Specific Root Key Derivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. Requirements for Usage Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.1. Root Key Management Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6. Requirements for EAP System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7.1. Key strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1312 7.2. Cryptographic separation of keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1312 7.3. Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.4. Key Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.5. Key Lifetime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.6. Entropy consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1413 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8.1. Key Labels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8.2. PRF numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1615 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1615 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1716 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 18 1. Introduction This document deals with keys generated by authenticated key exchange mechanisms defined within the EAP framework [RFC3748]. EAP defines two types of keying material; a Master Session Key (MSK) and an Extended Master Session Key (EMSK). The EAP specification implicitly assumes that the MSK produced by EAP will be used for a single purpose at a single device, however it does reserve the EMSK for future use. This document defines the EMSK to be used solely for deriving root keys using the key derivation specified. The root keys are meant either for specific purposes called usages. This document also provides guidelines for creating usage definitions for the various uses of EAP key material and for the management of the root keys. In this document, the terms application and usage (or "usage definition") refer to a specific use case of the EAP keying material. Different uses for keys derived from the EMSK have been proposed. Some examples include hand off across access points in various mobile technologies, mobile IP authentication and higher layer application authentication. In order for a particular usage of EAP key material to make use of this specification it must specify a so-called usage definition. This document does not define how the derived Usage Specific Root Keys (USRK) should be used or discuss what types of use cases are valid. It does define a framework for the derivation of USRKs for different purposes such that different usages can be developed independently from one another. The goal is to have security properties of one usage have minimal or no effect on the security properties of other usages. This document does define a special class of USRK, called a Domain Specific Root Key (DSRK) for use in deriving keys specific to an administrativea key management domain. Each DSRK is a root key used to derive USRKs which are specific to a particular administrative domain, calledDomain Specific Usage Specific Root Keys (DSUSRK). The DSUSRKs are USRKs specific to a particular key management domain. In order to keep root keys for specific purposes separate from one another two requirements are defined in the following sections. One is coordinated key derivation and another is cryptographic separation. 1.1. Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] The following terms are taken from [RFC3748]: EAP Server, peer, authenticator, Master Session Key (MSK), Extended Master Session Key (EMSK), Cryptographic Separation. Usage Definition An application of cryptographic key material to provide one or more security functions such as authentication, authorization, encryption or integrity protection for related applications or services. This document provides guidelines and recommendations for what should be included in usage definitions. This document does not place any constrains on the types of use cases or services that create usage definitions. Usage Specific Root Key (USRK) Keying material derived from the EMSK for a particular usage definition. It is used to derive child keys in a way defined by its usage definition. Key Management Domain A key management domain is a collection of systems that share the same access to key material. A single administrative domain may contain several key management domains in order to contain the scope of key material to a group of related systems. A entity that is not a member of a key management domain must not make use of key material for that domain. Only the domain where the key material is originated may derive key material from the EMSK for other domains. In the case where key material is distributed to another domain, intermediate systems may have access to see the key material during the key distribution process, but they must not make use of the key material. Domain Specific Root Key (DSRK) Keying material derived from the EMSK that is restricted to use in a particular administrativespecific key management domain. It is used to derive child keys for a particular usage definition. The child keys derived from a DSRK are referred to as domain specific usage specific root keys (DSUSRK). DSUSRKs are similar to the USRK, except in the fact that their scope is restricted to the same domain as the parent DSRK from which it is derived. 2. Cryptographic Separation and Coordinated Key Derivation The EMSK is used to derive keys for multiple use cases, and thus it is required that the derived keys are cryptographically separate. Cryptographic separation means that when multiple keys are derived from an EMSK, given any derived key it is computationally infeasible to derive any of the other derived keys. Note that deriving the EMSK from any combinations of the derived keys must also be computationally infeasible. In practice this means that derivation of an EMSK from a derived key or derivation of one child key from another must require an amount of computation equivalent to that required to, say, reversing a cryptographic hash function. Cryptographic separation of keys derived from the same key can be achieved in many ways. Two obvious methods are as follows: it is plausible to use the IKEv2 PRF [RFC4306] on the EMSK and generate a key stream. Keys of various lengths may be provided as required from the key stream for various uses. The other option is to derive keys from EMSK by providing different inputs to the PRF. However, it is desirable that derivation of one child key from the EMSK is independent of derivation of another child key. This allows child keys to be derived in any order, independent of other keys. Thus it is desirable to use the second option from above. That implies the additional input to the PRF must be different for each child key derivation. This additional input to the PRF must be coordinated properly to meet the requirement of cryptographic separation and to prevent reuse of key material between usages. If cryptographic separation is not maintained then the security of one usage depends upon the security of all other usages that use key derived from the EMSK. If a system does not have this property then a usage's security depends upon all other usages deriving keys from the same EMSK, which is undesirable. In order to prevent security problems in one usage from interfering with another usage, the following cryptographic separation is required: o It MUST be computationally infeasible to compute the EMSK from any root key derived from it. o Any root key MUST be cryptographically separate from any other root key derived from the same EMSK or DSRK o Derivation of USRKs MUST be coordinated so that two separate cryptographic usages do not derive the same key. o Derivation of DSRKs MUST be coordinated so that two separate administrativekey management domains do not derive the same key. o Derivation of DSRKs and USRKs MUST be specified such that no domain can obtain a USRK by providing a domain name identical to a Usage Key Label. This document provides guidelines for a key derivation mechanism, which can be used with existing and new EAP methods to provide cryptographic separation between usages of EMSK. This allows for the development of new usages without cumbersome coordination between different usage definitions. 3. EMSK Key Root Derivation Framework The EMSK key derivation framework provides a coordinated means for generating multiple root keys from an EMSK. Further keys may then be derived from the root key for various purposes, including encryption, integrity protection, entity authentication by way of proof of possession, and subsequent key derivation. A root key is derived from the EMSK for specific set of uses set forth in a usage definition described in Section 5. The basic EMSK root key hierarchy looks as follows: EMSK / \ USRK USRK This document defines how to derive usage specific root keys (USRK) from the EMSK anand also defines a specific USRK called a domain specific root key (DSRK). DSRK are root keys restricted to use in a particular administrativekey management domain. From the DSRK, usage specific root keys for a particular application may be derived (DSUSRK). The DSUSRKs are equivalent to USRKs that are restricted to use in a particular domain. The details of lower levels of key hierarchy isare outside scope of this document. The key hierarchy looks as follows: EMSK / \ USRK DSRK / \ DSUSRK1 DSUSRK2 3.1. USRK Derivation The EMSK Root Key derivation function (KDF) derives a USRK from the EMSK, a key label, optional data, and output length. The KDF is expected to give the same output for the same input. The basic key derivation function is given below. USRK = KDF(EMSK, key label, optional data, length) The key labels are printable ASCII strings unique for each usage definition and are a maximum of 255 bytes. In general they are of the form label-string@specorg where specorg is the organization that controls the specification of the usage definition of the Root Key. The key label is intended to provide global uniqueness. Rules for the allocation of these labels are given in Section 8. For the optional data the KDF MUST be capable of processing at least 2048 opaque octets. The optional data must be constant during the execution of the KDF. The length is a 2 byte unsigned integer in network byte order of the output key length in octets. An implementation of the KDF MUST be capable of producing at least 2048 octets of output, however it is RECOMMENDED that Root Keys be at least 64 octets long. A usage definition requiring derivation of a Root Key must specify all the inputs (other than EMSK) to the key derivation function. 3.2. The USRK Derivation Function The USRK key derivation function is based on a pseudo random function (PRF) that has the following function prototype: KDF = PRF(key, data) where: key = EMSK data = label + "\0" + op-data + length label = ASCII key label op-data = optional data length = 2 byte unsigned integer in network byte order '\0' = is a NULL byte (0x00 in hex) + denotes concatenation The NULL byte after the key label is used to avoid collisions if one key label is a prefix of another label (e.g. "foobar" and "foobarExtendedV2"). This is considered a simpler solution than requiring a key label assignment policy that prevents prefixes from occurring. <Editor's note: there is ongoing discussion on the value of including the length of the key in the key derivation.>This specification allows for the use of different PRFs. However, in order to have a coordinated key derivation function the same PRF function MUST be used for all key derivations for a given EMSK. If no PRF is specified, then the default PRF specified in Section 3.3 MUST be used. A system may provide the capability to negotiate additional PRFs. PRFs are assigned numbers through IANA following the policy set in section Section 8. The rules for negotiating a PRF are as follows: o If no other PRF is specified the PRF specified in this document MUST be used. This is the "default" PRF. o The initial authenticated key exchange MAY specify a favored PRF. For example an EAP method may define a preferred PRF to use in its specification. If the initial authenticated key exchange specifies a PRF then this MUST override the default PRF. o If the authenticated EAP key exchange is carried within another lower layer protocol that has negotiation capabilities then this protocol MAY attempt to negotiate a PRF to use. < editor's note: Is this a good idea, the concern is that it may lead to usage definitions trying to control what the PRF which may be difficult to manage. VN: I don't understand how the lower layer can negotiate a PRF for keys derived from the EMSK. Given that these keys are derived by the peer and server, it seems appropriate that either the same PRF as used in the EAP method be used or the default PRF be used. Anything else seems to be opening up room for confusion. JAS: Perhaps we should remove this bullet and the next one. > o If the system allows a lower layer protocol to negotiate a PRF then the negotiated PRF MUST be used. It SHOULD take into account any hints that are provided by the authenticated key exchange. Note that this capability MUST protect against bidding down attacks. oA system MAY specify a separate default PRF if all participants within the system have the knowledge of which PRF to use. If specified this MUST take precedence over key exchange defined PRF. Note that usage definitions MUST notNOT concern themselves with the details of the PRF construction or the PRF selection, they only need to worry about the inputs specified in Section 3. 3.3. Default PRF The default PRF for deriving root keys from an EMSK is taken from the PRF+ key expansion PRF from [RFC4306] based on HMAC-SHA-256 [SHA256]. The prf+ construction was chosen because of its simplicity and efficiency over other PRFs such as those used in [RFC2246]. The motivation for the design of this PRF is described in [SIGMA]. The definition of PRF+ from [RFC4306]is given below: prf+ (K,S) = T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | ... Where: T1 = prf (K, S | 0x01) T2 = prf (K, T1 | S | 0x02) T3 = prf (K, T2 | S | 0x03) T4 = prf (K, T3 | S | 0x04) continuing as needed to compute the required length of key material. The key, K, is the EMSK and S is the data defined in Section 3.2. For this specification the PRF is taken as HMAC-SHA-256 [SHA256]. Since PRF+ is only defined for 255 iterations it may produce up to 8160 bytes of key material. 3.4. Key Naming and Usage Data It is RECOMMENDED that the authenticated key exchange export a value, an EAP Session-ID, that is known to both sides to provide a way to identify the exchange and the keys derived by the exchange. The EAP keying framework [I-D.ietf-eap-keying] defines this value and provides an example of how to name an EMSK. The use of names based on the Session-ID in [I-D.ietf-eap-keying] is RECOMMENDED. It is RECOMMENDED that each USRK has a name derived as follows: USRK Name = prf-64(SHA-256-64 ( EAP Session-ID,Session-ID | key-label ) where prf-64SHA-256-64 is the first 64 bits from the SHA-256 output Usage definitions MAY use the EAP session-ID in the specification of the optional data parameter that go into the KDF function. This provides the advantage of providing data into the key derivation that is unique to the session that generated the keys. 4. Domain Specific Root Key Derivation A specific USRK called a Domain Specific Root Key (DSRK) is derived from the EMSK for a specific set of usages in a particular administrativekey management domain. Usages derive specific keys for specific services from this DSRK. The DSRK may be distributed to an administrativekey management domain for a specific set of usages so keys can be derived within the administrativekey management domain for those usages. DSRK based usages will follow a key hierarchy similar to the following: EMSK / \ / \ DSRK1 DSRK2 / \ / \ / \ DSUSRK21 DSUSRK22 DSUSRK11 DSUSRK12 The DSRK is a USRK with a key label of "email@example.com" and the optional data containing a domain label. The optional data MUST contain an ASCII string representing the administrativekey management domain that the root key is being derived for. The DSRK is MUST be 64 octets long. Domain Specific Usage Specific Root Keys (DSUSRK) are derived from the DSRK. The KDF is expected to give the same output for the same input. The basic key derivation function is given below. DSUSRK = KDF(DSRK, key label, optional data, length) The key labels are printable ASCII strings unique for each usage definition within a DSRK usage and are a maximum of 255 bytes. In general they are of the form label-string@specorg where specorg is the organization that controls the specification of the usage definition of the DSRK. The key label is intended to provide global uniqueness. Rules for the allocation of these labels are given in Section 8. For the optional data the KDF MUST be capable of processing at least 2048 opaque octets. The optional data must be constant during the execution of the KDF. The length is a 2 byte unsigned integer in network byte order of the output key length in octets. An implementation of the KDF MUST be capable of producing at least 2048 octets of output, however it is RECOMMENDED that DSUSRKs be at least 64 octets long. It is RECOMMENDED that each DSUSRK has a name derived as follows: DSUSRK Name = prf-64(SHA-256-64( DSRK Name,Name | key-label ) where prf-64SHA-256-64 is the first 64 bits from the SHA-256 output Usages that make use of the DSRK must define how the peer learns the domain label to use in a particular derivation. A multi-domain usage must define how both DSRKs and specific DSUSRKs are transported to different administrativekey managment domains. Note that usages may define alternate ways to constrain specific keys to particular administrative doamins, however it is recommended that usages attempt to follw the DSRK and DSUSRK derivation if possible so they can take advantages of the mechanisms being developed to manage and distribute the information required to generate these keys and the keys themselves.key management domains. 5. Requirements for Usage Definitions In order for a usage definition to meet the guidelines for USRK usage it must meet the following recommendations: o The usage must define if it is a domain enabled usage. o The usage definition MUST NOT use the EMSK in any other way except to derive Root Keys using the key derivation specified in Section 3 of this document. They MUST NOT use the EMSK directly. o The usage definition SHOULD NOT require caching of the EMSK. It is RECOMMENDED that the Root Key derived specifically for the usage definition rather than the EMSK should be used to derive child keys for specific cryptographic operations. o Usage definition MUST define distinct key labels and optional data used in the key derivation described in Section 3. Usage definitions are encouraged to use the key name described in Section 3.4 and include additional data in the optional data to provide additional entropy. o Usage definitions MUST define the length of their Root Keys. It is RECOMMENDED that the Root Keys be at least as long as the EMSK (64 bytes).(at least 64 octets). o Usage definitions MUST define how they use their Root Keys. This includes aspects of key management covered in the next section on Root Key Management guidelines. o 5.1. Root Key Management Guidelines This section makes recommendations for various aspects of key management of the Root Key including lifetime, child key derivation, caching and transport. It is RECOMMENDED that the Root Key only used for deriving child keys. A usage definition must specify how and when the derivation of child keys should be done. It is RECOMMENDED that usages following similar considerations for key derivation are as outlined in this document for the Root Key derivation with respect to cryptographic separation and key reuse. In addition, usages should take into consideration the number of keys that will be derived from the Root Key and ensure that enough entropy is introduced in the derivation to support this usage. It is desirable that the entropy is provided by the two parties that derive the child key. Root Keys have the same lifetime asKeys' lifetimes should not be more than that of the EMSK. Thus, when the EMSK expires, the Root Keys derived from it should be removed from use. If a new EMSK is derived from a subsequent EAP transaction then a usage implementation should begin to use the new Root Keys derived from the new EMSK as soon as possible. Whether or not child keys associated with a Root Key are replaced depends on the requirements of the usage definition. It is conceivable that some usage definition forces the child key to be replaced and others allow child keys to be used based on the policy of the entities that use the child key. <editor's note: It seems it may desirable for a Root Key lifetimes to vary with usage definitions as well. It must never be greater than that of the EMSK, but, it may be less. >Recall that the EMSK never leaves the EAP peer and server. That also holds true for some Root Keys; however, some Root Keys may be provided to other entities for child key derivation and delivery. Each usage definition specification will specify delivery caching and/or delivery procedures. Note that the purpose of the key derivation in Section 3 is to ensure that Root Keys are cryptographically separate from each other and the EMSK. In other words, given a Root Key, it is computationally infeasible to derive the EMSK, any other Root Keys, or child keys associated with other Root Keys. In addition to the Root Key, several other parameters may need to be sent. Root Key name should be derived using the EAP Session ID, and thus the key name needs to be sent along with the key. When Root Keys are delivered to another entity, the lifetime associated with the specific root keys MUST also be transported to that entity. Recommendations for transporting keys are discussed in the security considerations (Section 7.4). Usage definition may also define how keys are bound to particular entities. This can be done through the inclusion of usage parameters and identities in the child key derivation. Some of this data is described as "channel bindings" in [RFC3748]. 6. Requirements for EAP System The system that wishes to make use of EAP root keys derived from the EMSK must take certain things into consideration. The following is a list of these considerations: o The EMSK MUST NOT be used for any other purpose than the key derivation described in this document. o The EMSK MUST be secret and not known to someone observing the authentication mechanism protocol exchange. o The EMSK MUST be maintained within a protected location inside the entity where it is generated. Only root keys derived according to this specification may be exported from this boundary. o The EMSK MUST be unique for each EAP session o The EAP method MUST provide an identifier for the EAP transaction that generated the key o The system MUST define which usage definitions are used and how they are invoked. o The system may define ways to select an alternate PRF for key derivation as defined in Section 3.2. The system MAY use the MSK transmitted to the NAS in any way it chooses. This is required for backward compatibility. New usage definitions following this specification MUST NOT use the MSK. If more than one usage uses the MSK, then the cryptographic separation is not achieved. Implementations MUST prevent such combinations. 7. Security Considerations 7.1. Key strength The effective key strength of the derived keys will never be greater than the strength of the EMSK (or a master key internal to an EAP mechanism). 7.2. Cryptographic separation of keys The intent of the KDF is to derive keys that are cryptographically separate: the compromise of one of the usage specific root keys (USRKs) should not compromise the security of other USRKs or the EMSK. It is believed that the KDF chosen provides the desired separation. 7.3. Implementation An implementation of an EAP framework should keep the EMSK internally as close to where it is derived as possible and only provide an interface for obtaining Root Keys. It may also choose to restrict which callers have access to which keys. A usage definition MUST NOT assume that any entity outside the EAP server or EAP peer EAP framework has access to the EMSK. In particular it MUST NOT assume that a lower layer has access to the EMSK. 7.4. Key Distribution In some cases it will be necessary or convenient to distribute USRKs from where they are generated. Since these are secret keys they MUST be transported with their integrity and confidentiality maintained. They MUST be transmitted between authenticated and authorized parties. It is also important that the context of the key usage be transmitted along with the key. This includes information to identify the key and constraints on its usage such as lifetime. This document does not define a mechanism for key transport. It is up to usage definitions and the systems that use them to define how keys are distributed. Usage definition designers may enforce constraints on key usage by various parties by deriving a key hierarchy and by providing entities only with the keys in the hierarchy that they need. 7.5. Key Lifetime The key lifetime is dependent upon how the key is generated and how the key is used. Since the Root Key is the responsibility of the usage definition it must determine how long the key is valid for. If key lifetime or key strength information is available from the authenticated key exchange then this information SHOULD be used in determining the lifetime of the key. If possible it is recommended that key lifetimes be coordinated throughout the system. Setting a key lifetime shorter that a system lifetime may result is keys becoming invalid with no convenient way to refresh them. Setting a key lifetime to longer may result in decreased security since the key may be used beyond its recommended lifetime. 7.6. Entropy consideration The number of root keys derived from the EMSK is expected to be low. Note that there is no randomness required to be introduced into the EMSK to root key derivation beyond the root key labels. Thus, if many keys are going to be derived from an Root Key it is important that Root Key to child key derivation introduce fresh random numbers in deriving each key. 8. IANA Considerations The keywords "PRIVATE USE", "SPECIFICATION REQUIRED" and "IETF CONSENSUS" that appear in this document when used to describe namespace allocation are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2434]. 8.1. Key Labels This specification introduces a new name space for "USRK key labels". Key labels are of one of two formats: "label-string" or "label-string@specorg" (without the double quotes). Labels of the form "label-string" registered by the IANA MUST be printable US-ASCII strings, and MUST NOT contain the characters at- sign ("@"), comma (","), whitespace, control characters (ASCII codes 32 or less), or the ASCII code 127 (DEL). Labels are case-sensitive, and MUST NOT be longer than 64 characters. Labels of this form are assigned based on the IETF CONSENSUS policy. Labels with the at-sign in them of the form "label-string@specorg" where the part preceding the at-sign is the label. The format of the part preceding the at-sign is not specified; however, these labels MUST be printable US-ASCII strings, and MUST NOT contain the comma character (","), whitespace, control characters (ASCII codes 32 or less), or the ASCII code 127 (DEL). They MUST have only a single at- sign in them. The part following the at-sign MUST be a valid, fully qualified Internet domain name [RFC1034] controlled by the person or organization defining the label. Labels are case-sensitive, and MUST NOT be longer than 64 characters. It is up to each domainorganization how it manages its local namespace. Note that the total number of octets in a label is limited to 255. It has been noted that these labels resemble STD 11 [RFC0822] addresses and network access identifiers (NAI) defined in [RFC4282]. This is purely coincidental and has nothing to do with STD 11 [RFC0822] or [RFC4282]. An example of a locally definedkey label is "firstname.lastname@example.org" (without the double quotes). Labels within the "ietf.org" domainorganization are assigned based on the IETF CONSENSUS policy with specification recommended. Labels from other domainsorganizations may be registered with IANA by the person or organization controlling the domain with an assignment policy of SPECIFICATION REQUIRED. It is RECOMMENDED that the specification contain the following information: o A description of the usage o The key label to be used o Length of the Root Key o If optional data is used, what it is and how it is maintained o How child keys will be derived from the Root Key and how they will be used o How lifetime of the Root Key and its child keys will be managed o Where the Root Keys or child keys will be used and how they are communicated if necessary 8.2. PRF numbers This specification introduces a new number space for "EMSK PRF numbers". The numbers are int he range 0 to 255 Numbers from 0 to 220 are assigned through the policy IETF CONSENSUS and numbers in the range 221 to 255 are left for PRIVATE USE. The initial registry should contain the following values: 0 RESERVED 1 HMAC-SHA-256 PRF+ (Default) 9. Acknowledgements This document expands upon previous collaboration with Pasi Eronen. This document reflects conversations with Bernard Aboba, Jari Arkko, Avi Lior, David McGrew, Henry Haverinen, Hao Zhou and members of the EAP working group. 10. References 10.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998. [RFC3748] Aboba, B., Blunk, L., Vollbrecht, J., Carlson, J., and H. Levkowetz, "Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)", RFC 3748, June 2004. [RFC4306] Kaufman, C., "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol", RFC 4306, December 2005. [SHA256] National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Secure Hash Standard", FIPS 180-2, August 2002. With Change Notice 1 dated February 2004 10.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-eap-keying] Aboba, B., Simon, D., and P. Eronen, "Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Key Management Framework", draft-ietf-eap-keying-18draft-ietf-eap-keying-22 (work in progress), FebruaryNovember 2007. [RFC0822] Crocker, D., "Standard for the format of ARPA Internet text messages", STD 11, RFC 822, August 1982. [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987. [RFC2246] Dierks, T. and C. Allen, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0", RFC 2246, January 1999. [RFC4282] Aboba, B., Beadles, M., Arkko, J., and P. Eronen, "The Network Access Identifier", RFC 4282, December 2005. [SIGMA] Krawczyk, H., "SIGMA: the 'SIGn-and-MAc' Approach to Authenticated Diffie-Hellman and its Use in the IKE Protocols", LNCS 2729, Springer, 2003. Available at http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/ conf/crypto/crypto2003.html Authors' Addresses Joseph Salowey Cisco Systems Email: email@example.com Lakshminath Dondeti Qualcomm, Inc Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Vidya Narayanan Qualcomm, Inc Email: email@example.com Madjid Nakhjiri Huawei USAMotorola Email: firstname.lastname@example.org@motorola.com Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Intellectual Property The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at email@example.com. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA).