Re: [Emu] WG Last Call for Using EAP-TLS with TLS 1.3 (draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13-17)

Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net> Thu, 08 July 2021 05:06 UTC

Return-Path: <joe@salowey.net>
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 8A4763A09BD for <emu@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 22:06:30 -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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=salowey-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 cEHj2h3HG7Dl for <emu@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 22:06:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x136.google.com (mail-lf1-x136.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC48B3A09AF for <emu@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 22:06:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x136.google.com with SMTP id p1so11170453lfr.12 for <emu@ietf.org>; Wed, 07 Jul 2021 22:06:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=salowey-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=yQx5Zs69cdCoBGEc9JQ0oHY3ly/ffmUrdPUf4cUlCAo=; b=gpmIOHBpMooSm7TMA+jNHUUv0ln5NE2EBS5m1vfTLri+4a7SpeNQbIAPaTv4ML9/15 ibSgZZQgO/lXd2YNBdD35neRBC3+ycydYGxYfGOilNeotBh7apQ+IW5XgXjTkC/YWf+1 LSJoaBs8u6uSBJ8DVTcbd/mZFVJZWP9mohO5DwQSjpEVKTHmebeSv7ekzQOLPPfYuXEZ qJ2W6ajxPlrXvVcm3gDkFS+t+yD9iESBXtKeTFrvOy1J/SXzaCQ//4iHVpVvk+lAnfr8 slo2BhWEYArXoFFF9NLTjlceqZ75iomRYXs5hpFfjIw1k6sUMSzy42g25wt+TJNQfCYU dFNw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=yQx5Zs69cdCoBGEc9JQ0oHY3ly/ffmUrdPUf4cUlCAo=; b=bPp0semzd19ur5BSMuOkBM7thKkMmM92wKlsASvjTwfheAPZNFauh5dz4puqRq/ovU utwIpgJ9psTOchUJGbky28NFNOBu0gfJ7kBNkxpM3GRgPJxhB/HFT10abVJU9Kk+dLDW kqxqB5VbSx5yipjCbeNjkivaiuRT8p+V4ATZt1Ur4HbB1jhBkmouGPm1IHlxEaigX7vp 97jOG1AWYv5eHxDr1hrVEpBp9n6F+iWWlepSg/FU7pW6+gVNP8kemoIIbW2wXfwZtJDS k+RpesO6LTWA7Gbb/VxlKbnLB64qlj/iCuM8Gz4Ipb4S0tDFB1C9ChA6jkZWktN3YeXk 5a3Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532BM7/dynV1xXc26IvZ2eRRLe90MqtOKFU/nK2h23FV3nYIoPub JC2BQ02+ALOOiTafFMIE0sVL/8acjZ5ArsZMb51XOg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzUAnnaLzfcew7S4GBSsPgcxnlC6J/U+3hu2EuTUpBQuyUdE+gvuQOsmPTJEhv5hd4s5tewWMpSoLKBMPU5aew=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:992:: with SMTP id 140mr10177220ljj.371.1625720781946; Wed, 07 Jul 2021 22:06:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAOgPGoDX9HdmgvmnWz_xUTqXMM7pd4_T9W3opFR77ce8CNWdQQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABXxEz9GSgGof6t_3w3AngH6-FrMbKzDGKpDS90-N2gtmgqgnA@mail.gmail.com> <CAOgPGoBLb-70jynH7o26nyF4T=+ZcCk6GMb6zyXk6E8+erTjqQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOgPGoBLb-70jynH7o26nyF4T=+ZcCk6GMb6zyXk6E8+erTjqQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2021 22:06:11 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOgPGoADC_z4v2pUOAXC+HW1-P_OOuLOL5zR9tBjTCXXV7-22A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Oleg Pekar <oleg.pekar.2017@gmail.com>
Cc: EMU WG <emu@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b65b2205c6959d8d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emu/NXd6a0_TjHjMDnpssXvEJZ8n2sA>
Subject: Re: [Emu] WG Last Call for Using EAP-TLS with TLS 1.3 (draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13-17)
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: Thu, 08 Jul 2021 05:06:31 -0000

On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 10:08 PM Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 8:11 AM Oleg Pekar <oleg.pekar.2017@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I still see unclearness in Section "2.2. Identity Verification", I'm
>> trying to look from the implementer's perspective.
>>
>> 1) "Since EAP-TLS deployments may use more than one EAP
>>    server, each with a different certificate, EAP peer implementations
>>    SHOULD allow for the configuration of a unique trusted root (CA
>>    certificate) to authenticate the server certificate and one or more
>>    server names to match against the SubjectAltName (SAN) extension in
>>    the server certificate.  To simplify name matching, an EAP-TLS
>>    deployment can assign a name to represent an authorized EAP server
>>    and EAP Server certificates can include this name in the list of SANs
>>    for each certificate that represents an EAP-TLS server."
>>
>> --- question: Should the server name match *any* of SAN extensions in the
>> server certificate? If so - then suggest to say this explicitly.
>>
>>
[Joe] DOes adding the following sentence help?

"If any of the configured names match any of the names in the SAN extension
then the name check passes."


>
> [Joe] yes the behavior is to match any.
>
>
>> 2) "If server
>>    name matching is not used, then peers may end up trusting servers for
>>    EAP authentication that are not intended to be EAP servers for the
>>    network."
>>
>> --- question: It looks like a warning, right? Suggest to make it more
>> explicit. Something like "If server name matching is not used, then it
>> essentially decreases the level of security of peer's authentication since
>> the peer may end up trusting servers for EAP authentication that are not
>> intended to be EAP servers for the network."
>>
>>
> [Joe] Thanks, I think that is better wording.
>
>
>> Regards,
>> Oleg
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 2:26 AM Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net> wrote:
>>
>>> This is the working group last-call (WGLC) for draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13.
>>> Please review the draft, focus on the changes since the last WGLC and
>>> submit your comments to the list by July 8, 2021.
>>>
>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13/
>>>
>>> There is also an htmlized version available at:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13-17
>>>
>>> A diff from the previous WGLC version (-15):
>>>
>>> https://www.ietf.org//rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13-17&url2=draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13-15
>>>
>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13-17
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Joe
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Emu mailing list
>>> Emu@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
>>>
>>