Re: [Emu] review of draft-ietf-emu-eaptunnel-req-04

"Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <jsalowey@cisco.com> Thu, 04 March 2010 15:11 UTC

Return-Path: <jsalowey@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: emu@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: emu@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C082E3A8D45 for <emu@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Mar 2010 07:11:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2yWXQLJ2Igq6 for <emu@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Mar 2010 07:11:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4838E3A8D4A for <emu@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Mar 2010 07:11:30 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAFNcj0urR7H+/2dsb2JhbACbP3OefosBjWKCcYILBIMX
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,581,1262563200"; d="scan'208";a="305167460"
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com ([171.71.177.254]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Mar 2010 15:11:32 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o24FBWLJ014484; Thu, 4 Mar 2010 15:11:32 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-225.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.38]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 4 Mar 2010 07:11:32 -0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 07:11:31 -0800
Message-ID: <AC1CFD94F59A264488DC2BEC3E890DE509BD3F61@xmb-sjc-225.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <7F9A6D26EB51614FBF9F81C0DA4CFEC801BE05CB586A@il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Emu] review of draft-ietf-emu-eaptunnel-req-04
Thread-Index: Acq7ZptmRiNX16zCRY++nzCXw6fygQAAXYmwABD/G4A=
References: <mailman.918.1267675512.4805.emu@ietf.org><7F9A6D26EB51614FBF9F81C0DA4CFEC801BE05CB5865@il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com><4B8F577A.2030002@deployingradius.com> <7F9A6D26EB51614FBF9F81C0DA4CFEC801BE05CB586A@il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com>
From: "Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <jsalowey@cisco.com>
To: Yaron Sheffer <yaronf@checkpoint.com>, Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Mar 2010 15:11:32.0289 (UTC) FILETIME=[F92F8310:01CABBAC]
Cc: emu@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Emu] review of draft-ietf-emu-eaptunnel-req-04
X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" <emu.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu>, <mailto:emu-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 15:11:31 -0000

Hi Yaron,

The existing text is just about restricting the mandatory to implement
cipher suites.  Are you OK with the text?   

Thanks,

Joe

> -----Original Message-----
> From: emu-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:emu-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Yaron Sheffer
> Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 11:05 PM
> To: Alan DeKok
> Cc: emu@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Emu] review of draft-ietf-emu-eaptunnel-req-04
> 
> Hi Alan,
> 
> Initial provisioning by shipping the device with the trust anchor pre-
> installed is fine, if you're Verizon. But in many cases you don't
control
> the device, and don't have a trusted path through which to transport
the
> CA cert (I am thinking enterprise CA here, not a public CA). The
> combination of anonymous tunnel plus mutual auth with a one-time
password
> allows you to do that.
> 
> But I'm OK with not making this option mandatory, since there are
> important use cases that don't need it.
> 
> Thanks,
> 	Yaron
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alan DeKok [mailto:aland@deployingradius.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 8:47
> > To: Yaron Sheffer
> > Cc: emu@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [Emu] review of draft-ietf-emu-eaptunnel-req-04
> >
> > Yaron Sheffer wrote:
> > > Joe, what Dan is proposing is a reasonable way to use a one-time
> > password for the initial provisioning of a trust anchor. Initial
> > provisioning is important for many types of deployments. Does the
> > document allow an alternative secure way to do that?
> >
> >   TLS-based methods can leverage server certificates.  This is
already
> > done in other areas (WiMAX, etc.)
> >
> >   i.e. ship a device with a known CA, and on first provisioning, TLS
> > checks the server certificate, and the user validates that the name
of
> > the server is what was expected.
> >
> >   Since the document doesn't forbid anonymous methods, the only
issue
> > here is whether or not the document should make them mandatory to
> > implement.  I agree with Joe, in that they shouldn't be mandatory.
> >
> >   Alan DeKok.
> >
> > Scanned by Check Point Total Security Gateway.
> _______________________________________________
> Emu mailing list
> Emu@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu