Re: [Emu] Issue 59 - Key Update
Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> Tue, 13 April 2021 10:18 UTC
Return-Path: <aland@deployingradius.com>
X-Original-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9038D3A017E for <emu@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 03:18:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XLadMdnK2kQi for <emu@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 03:18:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.networkradius.com (mail.networkradius.com [62.210.147.122]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33DAF3A0121 for <emu@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 03:18:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.46.129] (24-52-251-6.cable.teksavvy.com [24.52.251.6]) by mail.networkradius.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A178D8E; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 10:18:45 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: NetworkRADIUS; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=deployingradius.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOgPGoAFbc09QFVBRYRfjFyYt8rd+naW0ZJ1OTchoX6FUt-xQg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 06:18:43 -0400
Cc: EMU WG <emu@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C86DF009-865E-44AC-B181-2AF3368D905F@deployingradius.com>
References: <CAOgPGoA_rFLppfSFLp3-yBq5Vd9Cc4=qY1FTxg3s118Q7qkofQ@mail.gmail.com> <8ED83E4F-68D1-49FB-9328-4B98E691A88A@deployingradius.com> <CAOgPGoAFbc09QFVBRYRfjFyYt8rd+naW0ZJ1OTchoX6FUt-xQg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emu/6fYxKxeG74nkAhedbPk0PTLqtPI>
Subject: Re: [Emu] Issue 59 - Key Update
X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" <emu.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/emu>, <mailto:emu-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/emu/>
List-Post: <mailto:emu@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emu-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu>, <mailto:emu-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 10:18:55 -0000
On Apr 13, 2021, at 12:40 AM, Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net> wrote: > [Joe] OK, this sounds reasonable to me. How about text like the following: > > "EAP-TLS implementations MUST NOT explicitly request key updates. It is possible that a TLS library implementation may automatically send a key update message so an implementation detecting the reception of a keyUpdate message MAY process or ignore the message since only a minimum amount of application data is exchanged in the channel." That's great, thanks. Alan DeKok.
- [Emu] Issue 59 - Key Update Joseph Salowey
- Re: [Emu] Issue 59 - Key Update Alan DeKok
- Re: [Emu] Issue 59 - Key Update Joseph Salowey
- Re: [Emu] Issue 59 - Key Update Alan DeKok