[Emu] [Errata Verified] RFC7170 (7145)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Mon, 01 April 2024 11:32 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.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 D2534C14F60A; Mon, 1 Apr 2024 04:32:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.949
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5JEeieYTLQNE; Mon, 1 Apr 2024 04:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (rfcpa.amsl.com [50.223.129.200]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F987C14F6A7; Mon, 1 Apr 2024 04:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id 24D985BDD43; Mon, 1 Apr 2024 04:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
To: lear@lear.ch, hzhou@cisco.com, ncamwing@cisco.com, jsalowey@cisco.com, steve.hanna@infineon.com
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: paul.wouters@aiven.io, iesg@ietf.org, emu@ietf.org, iana@iana.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20240401113240.24D985BDD43@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2024 04:32:40 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emu/_bqmxUbG-DcCCInpxIh86jX7-Aw>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 03 Apr 2024 11:16:43 -0700
Subject: [Emu] [Errata Verified] RFC7170 (7145)
X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 01 Apr 2024 11:32:44 -0000

The following errata report has been verified for RFC7170,
"Tunnel Extensible Authentication Protocol (TEAP) Version 1". 

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7145

--------------------------------------
Status: Verified
Type: Technical

Reported by: Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch>
Date Reported: 2022-10-05
Verified by: Paul Wouters (IESG)

Section: 3.3.3

Original Text
-------------
   The Crypto-Binding TLV MUST be exchanged and verified
   before the final Result TLV exchange, regardless of whether or not
   there is an inner EAP method authentication.

Corrected Text
--------------
   Except as noted below, the Crypto-Binding TLV MUST be exchanged and verified
   before the final Result TLV exchange, regardless of whether or not
   there is an inner EAP method authentication

Notes
-----
The text contradicts itself in the same paragraph, because it goes on to say:

   The server may send the final Result TLV along with an
   Intermediate-Result TLV and a Crypto-Binding TLV to indicate its
   intention to end the conversation.  If the peer requires nothing more
   from the server, it will respond with a Result TLV indicating success
   accompanied by a Crypto-Binding TLV and Intermediate-Result TLV if
   necessary.

So there are actually several legal combinations here:

1. Server and peer perform a crypto-binding exchange in anticipation of later sending Result TLVs
2. The server and peer combine their crypto-binding and Result TLV in the same message.
3. One side initiates a crypto-binding TLV and the OTHER responds with both crypto-binding and Result TLV.

The practice seems to be to include the crypto-binding TLVs alongside Result TLVs.

--------------------------------------
RFC7170 (draft-ietf-emu-eap-tunnel-method-10)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Tunnel Extensible Authentication Protocol (TEAP) Version 1
Publication Date    : May 2014
Author(s)           : H. Zhou, N. Cam-Winget, J. Salowey, S. Hanna
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : EAP Method Update
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG