IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Emu] POST WGLC Comments draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 11 October 2019 11:03 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 87F37120058; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 04:03:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.435
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.435 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS=3.335, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 ngutjeQy92MO; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 04:03:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [IPv6:2a01:7e00::f03c:91ff:feae:de77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E24A1120074; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 04:03:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (x59cc8913.dyn.telefonica.de [89.204.137.19]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CB7D1F47F; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 11:03:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id A6A3434A6; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 13:04:21 +0200 (CEST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
cc: Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net>, "draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13@ietf.org>, John Mattsson <john.mattsson=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, EMU WG <emu@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <CC58A292-03D6-4D70-A11F-B8FEE7311E78@cisco.com>
References: <7828_1564869242_5D46027A_7828_348_1_02e001d54a45$e92ae900$bb80bb00$@augustcellars.com> <20b118932a4843b6b88e605799fafea8@aalto.fi> <211AD83C-D111-4EEB-AAF0-D9B5E521F4CF@deployingradius.com> <8F355C6F-DF1E-4E03-B75E-0F1D2508B9D4@ericsson.com> <246280B8-6E5C-484B-95BD-9C940C98C507@deployingradius.com> <CY4PR1101MB22781AB8C8982ACF99B61544DB8E0@CY4PR1101MB2278.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <17E08795-4E4E-4507-8384-836020966BCF@deployingradius.com> <634C375D-FBF3-4297-A5C0-E68C903CA34A@ericsson.com> <CAOgPGoBko6N_JebmisoSk_EJ=Hq21sV3xoXjLw4r7D+OFSsdZA@mail.gmail.com> <CC58A292-03D6-4D70-A11F-B8FEE7311E78@cisco.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> message dated "Thu, 10 Oct 2019 09:14:30 +0200."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 13:04:21 +0200
Message-ID: <26738.1570791861@dooku.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emu/IAev9RSEXpcwjgOdbBUg-TJVayY>
Subject: Re: [Emu] POST WGLC Comments draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13
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: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 11:03:37 -0000

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:
    > Before we nail this down, it seems like we need to have a discussion
    > about how best to onboard wired IoT devices in particular from an
    > on-prem view.  The issue here is that EAP-TLS-PSK is useful for that
    > purpose, as we discussed.  Now there is nothing particularly special
    > about PSK and we could run with a naked public key pair as well in 1.3,
    > but we have to choose something.

okay, so why do you prefer PSK?

    > The fundamental question is what does
    > a manufacturer stamp into the device and what is placed on a label.  We
    > have a running example of DPP doing this for wireless with public key
    > code, but that doesn’t get us to proper onboarding for wired – the
    > signaling just isn’t there.

I don't understand this.
Are you saying that because it's wired, people do not expect to scan
anything?

-- 
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email