Re: [Emu] EAP-TLS 1.3 Section 2.2 text

Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> Mon, 17 May 2021 12:44 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 D90A03A3687 for <emu@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 May 2021 05:44:20 -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 2T9XeTvDmyDO for <emu@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 May 2021 05:44:16 -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 87CFD3A3686 for <emu@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 May 2021 05:44:16 -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 16FB039; Mon, 17 May 2021 12:44:11 +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 \(3608.120.23.2.6\))
From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOgPGoAd3CcaqPYd0aYXBDtCmv32T8hpGH+6ysEn7Pi9M+FSiw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 08:44:10 -0400
Cc: EMU WG <emu@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9206028C-7CE2-4A90-BFD4-AFCD5FBDA7DE@deployingradius.com>
References: <CAOgPGoBDcbDxGB3_Qy_xXymhnxrfMaOPNP545eMh8XLvU6OX+A@mail.gmail.com> <92D9824F-82C2-440F-807F-7B4799DCF1B6@deployingradius.com> <CAOgPGoAd3CcaqPYd0aYXBDtCmv32T8hpGH+6ysEn7Pi9M+FSiw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.6)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emu/ZA7Kpos979VxALuU-thsPjxz3L0>
Subject: Re: [Emu] EAP-TLS 1.3 Section 2.2 text
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: Mon, 17 May 2021 12:44:21 -0000

On May 15, 2021, at 8:21 PM, Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net> wrote:
> I proposed a PR#72 based on this suggestion. The resulting text for the section is below.  Please review to see if it is OK.

  It looks good, subject to minor comments.

>    The EAP peer identity provided in the EAP-Response/Identity is not
>    authenticated by EAP-TLS.  Unauthenticated information SHALL NOT be

  This is just a personal preference, but "MUST NOT" is clearer to me than SHALL NOT.  It's also more used, IIRC.

>    The EAP server identity in the TLS server certificate is typically a
>    fully qualified domain name (FQDN).  EAP peer implementations SHOULD
>    allow users to configure a unique trust root (CA certificate) and a
>    server name to authenticate the server certificate and match the

  The later text discusses multiple names, so perhaps instead

	... and one or more server names ...

  Alan DeKok.