Re: [Ace] call for adoption for draft-marin-ace-wg-coap-eap

Daniel Migault <> Tue, 16 February 2021 14:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 873C73A0E0A for <>; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 06:40:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z1kiu310lpCD for <>; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 06:40:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e2d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E42E3A0E07 for <>; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 06:40:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id t23so4993553vsk.2 for <>; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 06:40:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=rASVnISok5b4j1mNEihDEdYOZy/EabpKVP6xaLlq4vY=; b=DFYJsE2CGzU3bJDgk1tUxU88DMyZITdn06tDc8w8aiL6rFgrE0coqgAQm2sILFYCWz lfupo4yfmklPNaOF5v2TcyU8FtMlU8oGiOPenRhETvEuAX2GSe14sX+HFjXVib2A+/vD 0ulxrznyA3k1oPcmiErAJN1olIWIrx9EaIty3Oe2CMKI6aHezNxb7oTlr9glHERv1rps E23IwPR/Z5doTRFWlGty6E56RYbLjSFVa4Jt9ZXT6rytgZquTwj+2pNspYuhOBvcTFyQ blZAmDd4x9JiFbzBy5YAwsi4oB33Qq8fiiSoOwfKw/D+81xtRNL6J8/MOTU907ybvP7r sznw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=rASVnISok5b4j1mNEihDEdYOZy/EabpKVP6xaLlq4vY=; b=rVVI0UzoCQb1BOCTspLk75erhRLa/wCHjjgga0vtIYx7pcmnEFQZQYyD2YhyJL1xqq qataQEZH5AtOi7wCwu/TeF7963XaPpUii9ybTGwSRtqWK2wC81uiN75JiJAY18ZDG7t/ kRamVdTUtKPdSCjHEZXq6ArysAdeKyQwjoUS0KNiFY0tG/9kvxnJm14Jaj46xORd63Mr 6nYLLDy8QjCjoHDE6nJgzYeWpkQWswf3b0cSmqJhPxQZTVJY/FkpknJpDSx3Ik+YDsf8 WsJzOQ13GRrI3+T3ZVOgGzQH706lshsLiN+FsqNe3GxYhXZsfFS+8cyuCGoyGGhGBOIY FgdQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Ack8Cv5cn5mMIYfB4D2HCCwlBZ4vQBbJLGGfi401tA+VAOcKH J4Nzdt2tBwIRNZ4cr3ir/nUCTe/RurSAIP5AYgI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyPPHZMXYuyTcAK/wIJP2873MO+IvSvQzzsMbqLZWOzSeQV8xxQF8vw7k2q8zYqIMleEME9RTqraaTEuECXUkg=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:ed09:: with SMTP id l9mr11354235vsp.4.1613486454979; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 06:40:54 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <14711.1612646999@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <14711.1612646999@localhost>
From: Daniel Migault <>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 09:40:44 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: Michael Richardson <>
Cc: =?UTF-8?B?RWR1YXJkbyBJbmdsw6lzIChJTVQp?= <>, Ace Wg <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ffc05505bb7516a5"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ace] call for adoption for draft-marin-ace-wg-coap-eap
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments \(ace\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 14:40:59 -0000


I would like to close the call for adoption. As far as I can see, 5 strong
support for adoption in addition to the coauthors and one objection.
The objection for the draft adoption was a lake of a use case or a
description of a specific use case - that requires EAP over CoAP. On the
other hand it has been acknowledged the draft is expected to ease
interconnecting the CoAP and EAP (for lower layers) communities. I propose
we consider the draft as adopted - once the charter will be approved with
this item mentioned in the charter.

When the adoption becomes official I will ask the co-author to publish an
update of the document that addresses the comment received during the call
for adoption as well as provide a careful analysis and description on the
position of this work.


On Sat, Feb 6, 2021 at 4:30 PM Michael Richardson <>

> Eduardo Inglés (IMT) wrote:
>     > Regarding the writing of the draft, I agree with Michael Richardson
>     > that it can be improved to facilitate the understanding of some
>     > concepts. For example, I would rewrite this sentence to understand it
>     > on a first reading: "EAP requests go always from the EAP
> authenticator
>     > and the EAP peer and the EAP responses from the EAP peer to the EAP
>     > authenticator."  And perhaps it is convenient to clarify in the
>     > abstract that this draft is a lower layer EAP to avoid confusion with
>     > the EAP methods. However, I do agree with the authors on the
> usefulness
>     > of the protocol.
> Could you please explain to me a use case?
> Did you use an EAP method to key OSCORE?
> Did you do this without a TLS method within the EAP?
> If you did use a TLS method within EAP, then did you compare:
> to:
> What was your EAP peer to AAA server communication transported?
> Was it EAP over RADIUS?  If so, how did you setup the RADIUS key?
> Or did you use DTLS or TLS for the RADIUS?
> --
> Michael Richardson <>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>            Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
> _______________________________________________
> Ace mailing list

Daniel Migault