Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9427 <draft-ietf-emu-tls-eap-types-13> for your review

[[e-mail]]

Authors,

While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) 
the following questions, which are also in the XML file.

1) <!-- [rfced] Please note that the title of the document has been updated 
as follows: abbreviations have been expanded per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 
("RFC Style Guide"). Please review.

Also, should "and" be "for", since the text says that the methods described 
in this document are to be used with TLS 1.3?

Original:
   TLS-Based EAP Types and TLS 1.3

Current:
   TLS-Based Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Types and TLS 1.3

Perhaps:
   TLS-Based Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Types for TLS 1.3 -->


2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the 
title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->


3) <!-- [rfced] Should the following sentence in the Abstract be updated
to include the mention of "PEAP" in order to make the content in
the Abstract parallel to the Introduction? 

Original:
   EAP-TLS (RFC 5216) has been updated for TLS 1.3 in RFC 9190.
   Many other EAP types also depend on TLS, such as EAP-FAST (RFC 4851),
   EAP- TTLS (RFC 5281), TEAP (RFC 7170), and possibly many vendor
   specific EAP methods.

Perhaps: 
   Extensible Authentication Protocol-TLS (EAP-TLS) (RFC 5216) has been
   updated for TLS 1.3 in RFC 9190.  Many other EAP Types also depend on 
   TLS, such as EAP-Flexible Authentication via Secure Tunneling (EAP-FAST) 
   (RFC 4851), EAP-Tunneled TLS (EAP-TTLS) (RFC 5281), and the Tunnel 
   Extensible Authentication Protocol (TEAP) (RFC 7170). It is possible 
   that many vendor-specific EAP methods, such as the Protected Extensible 
   Authentication Protocol (PEAP), depend on TLS as well. -->


4) <!-- [rfced] May we update the following sentence in the Introduction 
for easy readability?

Original:
   Many other EAP
   types also depend on TLS, such as EAP-FAST [RFC4851], EAP-TTLS
   [RFC5281], TEAP [RFC7170], and possibly many vendor specific EAP
   methods, such as PEAP [PEAP].

Perhaps:
   Many other EAP
   Types also depend on TLS, such as EAP-FAST [RFC4851], EAP-TTLS
   [RFC5281], and TEAP [RFC7170]. It is possible that many 
   vendor-specific EAP methods, such as the Protected Extensible 
   Authentication Protocol (PEAP) [PEAP], depend on TLS as well. -->


5) <!-- [rfced] Please review each artwork element in the xml file. 
Specifically, should any artwork element be tagged as sourcecode or another 
element?
-->


6) <!-- [rfced] May we change "TLS-Exporter" to "TLS-Exporter function" 
since the latter appears consistently throughout the document?

Original:
   Note that unlike TLS 1.2 and earlier, the calculation of TLS-Exporter
   depends on the length passed to it. 

Perhaps:
   Note that unlike TLS 1.2 and earlier, the calculation of the TLS-
   Exporter function depends on the length passed to it. -->


7) <!-- [rfced] In Section 2.2, the following line is one character over 
the limit for the text output (note that there is a 72-character limit for 
artwork). Please let us know how to update so that the artwork will fit.

Original:
   EMSK = TLS-Exporter("EXPORTER: Extended Session Key Generating Function",
 -->


8) <!-- [rfced] Should we rephrase the following sentence to avoid
repetition of "MAC"?

Original:
   That is, the MAC used is the MAC derived
   from the TLS handshake.

Perhaps:
   That is, the MAC that is used is derived
   from the TLS handshake. -->


9) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We are unable to locate and verify the direct quote
provided below in Section 7.6 of RFC 7170. However, we do see this quote
in Section 7.6 of RFC 5281. We have updated the citation to "Section 7.6
of [RFC5281]" from "[RFC7170] Section 7.6". Please let us know if this
change is incorrect.

Original:
   That is, while [RFC7170] Section 7.6 permits "Authentication of the
   client via client certificate during phase 1, with no additional
   authentication or information exchange required.", this practice is
   forbidden when TEAP is used with TLS 1.3.

Current:
   While Section 7.6 of [RFC5281] permits "authentication of the
   client via client certificate during phase 1 with no additional
   authentication or information exchange required," this practice is
   forbidden when TEAP is used with TLS 1.3. -->


10) <!-- [rfced] The reference associated with the citation tag [PEAP-PRF]
in the text below does not display the direct quote listed in
this section. However, the reference associated with the citation
tag [PEAP-TK] contains this direct quote. We have updated the
text as follows to accurately reflect the correct citation. 
Please let us know if this change is incorrect.

Original:
   However, the pseudo-random function (PRF+) calculation uses a PEAP
   Tunnel Key which is defined in [PEAP-PRF] as...

Current:
   However, the PRF+ calculation uses a PEAP
   Tunnel Key (TK), which is defined in [PEAP-TK] as... -->


11) <!-- [rfced] May we rephrase this sentence as follows for an improved 
flow of the text?

Original: 
   The inner identity can then be fully-qualified: user name plus realm
   of the organization.

Perhaps: 
   The inner identity (username plus the realm of the organization) can
   then be fully qualified. -->


12) <!-- [rfced] In Section 3.1, may we introduce the second sentence as 
follows to avoid repetition of "For example..." from the paragraph before?

Original:
   For example, an organization which uses a "hosted" AAA provider may
   choose to use the realm of the AAA provider as the outer identity for
   user authentication...

   For example, an organization may host their own AAA servers, but use
   a "cloud" identity provider to hold user accounts.

Perhaps:
   For example, an organization that uses a "hosted" AAA provider may
   choose to use the realm of the AAA provider as the outer identity for
   user authentication...

   Additionally, an organization may host their own AAA servers but use
   a "cloud" identity provider to hold user accounts. -->


13)  <!--[rfced] Would you like to include another example in addition to
"identities" so that there is a list two items followed by
"etc."?  If you would only like to list "identities",
may we rephrase the text as follows? Please let us know your
preference.

Original:
   The requirements on identities, etc. remain unchanged from that
   document.

Perhaps:
   The requirements on identities and the like remain unchanged from 
   that document.
-->


14) <!--[rfced] Please clarify the following sentence. Should "by" be
"for", or should the text be rephrased for clarity as follows? 
Please let us know your preference.

Also, should this sentence perhaps follow the last paragraph 
in Section 5 instead of being the lead-in sentence?

Original:
   [RFC9190], Section 5 is included here by reference.

Perhaps:
A)  See the Security Considerations in [RFC9190], Section 5 
    for reference.

or 

B)  [RFC9190], Section 5 is included here for reference.
-->


15) <!-- [rfced] We believe that the citation [RFC84346] is a typo, so we 
have updated it to [RFC8446]. Please let us know if this change is
incorrect. Additionally, we have updated "allows that" to "states" for
improved readability.

Original:
   However, [RFC84346], Section 4.6.1 allows that "At any 
   time after the server has received the client Finished 
   message, it MAY send a NewSessionTicket message."

Current:
   However, Section 4.6.1 of [RFC8446] states that "at any time 
   after the server has received the client Finished message, 
   it MAY send a NewSessionTicket message." -->


16) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have updated the titles of the reference entries
below to match what appears at the landing page of their
corresponding URLs.

a)
Original:
   [PEAP-MPPE]
      "PEAP Key Management", https ://docs.microsoft.com/en-
      us/openspecs/windows_protocols/MS-
      PEAP/e75b0385-915a-4fc3-a549-fd3d06b995b0

Current:
   [PEAP-MPPE]
      Microsoft Corporation, "Key Management", Section 3.1.5.7,
      October 2020, <https://learn.microsoft.com/en-
      us/openspecs/windows_protocols/ms-peap/e75b0385-915a-
      4fc3-a549-fd3d06b995b0>. 

b)
Original:
   [PEAP-PRF]
      "PEAP Intermediate PEAP MAC Key (IPMK) and Compound MAC Key (CMK)"
      https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecs/windows_protocols/MS-
      PEAP/0de54161-0bd3-424a-9b1a-854b4040a6df

Current:
   [PEAP-PRF] 
      Microsoft Corporation, "Intermediate PEAP MAC Key (IPMK)
      and Compound MAC Key (CMK)", Section 3.1.5.5.2.2, February
      2019, <https://docs.microsoft.com/en-
      us/openspecs/windows_protocols/MS-PEAP/0de54161-0bd3-424a-
      9b1a-854b4040a6df>.

c)
Original:
   [PEAP-TK]
      "PEAP Tunnel Key (TK)" https://docs.microsoft.com/en-
      us/openspecs/windows_protocols/MS-PEAP/41288c09-3d7d-482f-a57f-
      e83691d4d246

Current:
   [PEAP-TK]  
      Microsoft Corporation, "PEAP Tunnel Key (TK)",
      Section 3.1.5.5.2.1, April 2021,
      <https://docs.microsoft.com/en-
      us/openspecs/windows_protocols/MS-PEAP/41288c09-3d7d-482f-
      a57f-e83691d4d246> -->


17) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the 
online Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
and let us know if any changes are needed. For example, please consider 
whether the term "master" should be updated. -->


Thank you.

RFC Editor


On Jun 9, 2023, at 10:58 AM, [e-mail] wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2023/06/09

RFC Author(s):
--------------

Instructions for Completing AUTH48

Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and 
approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.  
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies 
available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).

You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties 
(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing 
your approval.

Planning your review 
---------------------

Please review the following aspects of your document:

*  RFC Editor questions

   Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor 
   that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as 
   follows:

   <!-- [rfced] ... -->

   These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.

*  Changes submitted by coauthors 

   Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your 
   coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you 
   agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.

*  Content 

   Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot 
   change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular attention to:
   - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
   - contact information
   - references

*  Copyright notices and legends

   Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
   RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions 
   (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).

*  Semantic markup

   Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of  
   content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode> 
   and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at 
   <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.

*  Formatted output

   Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the 
   formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is 
   reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting 
   limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.


Submitting changes
------------------

To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all 
the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties 
include:

   *  your coauthors
   
   *  [e-mail] (the RPC team)

   *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., 
      IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the 
      responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
     
   *  [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing list 
      to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion 
      list:
     
     *  More info:
        https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
     
     *  The archive itself:
        https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/

     *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out 
        of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
        If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you 
        have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, 
        [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list and 
        its addition will be noted at the top of the message. 

You may submit your changes in one of two ways:

An update to the provided XML file
 — OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format

Section # (or indicate Global)

OLD:
old text

NEW:
new text

You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit 
list of changes, as either form is sufficient.

We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, 
and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in 
the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.


Approving for publication
--------------------------

To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.


Files 
-----

The files are available here:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9427.xml
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9427.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9427.pdf
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9427.txt

Diff file of the text:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9427-diff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9427-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9427-xmldiff1.html

The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own 
diff files of the XML.  

Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9427.original.v2v3.xml 

XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
only: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9427.form.xml


Tracking progress
-----------------

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9427

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9427 (draft-ietf-emu-tls-eap-types-13)

Title            : TLS-based EAP types and TLS 1.3
Author(s)        : A. DeKok
WG Chair(s)      : Joseph A. Salowey, Peter E. Yee

Area Director(s) : Roman Danyliw, Paul Wouters