IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Emu] Best practices for supplicants and authenticators

Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> Mon, 18 November 2019 15:43 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 44418120A35 for <emu@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 07:43:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 vrs1t3vKpYiO for <emu@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 07:43:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.networkradius.com (mail.networkradius.com [62.210.147.122]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91B7C120A4F for <emu@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 07:43:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.46.58] (24-52-251-6.cable.teksavvy.com [24.52.251.6]) by mail.networkradius.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ABFE0B3F; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 15:43:30 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: NetworkRADIUS; dmarc=none header.from=deployingradius.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
In-Reply-To: <AT5PR8401MB05309AD8F339DF5B6BD2E993DB4D0@AT5PR8401MB0530.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 10:43:29 -0500
Cc: EMU WG <emu@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4D4ACE1D-B565-4AB2-87B8-FD8362A0E76F@deployingradius.com>
References: <526166D8-80B9-4356-84D9-52ACD49E004B@deployingradius.com> <AT5PR8401MB0530EEE33628E2DB3098C1E6DB4D0@AT5PR8401MB0530.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <D3569D77-A2AB-4FEE-BF2A-1AAAFCB9D3D6@deployingradius.com> <AT5PR8401MB05309AD8F339DF5B6BD2E993DB4D0@AT5PR8401MB0530.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
To: "Cappalli, Tim (Aruba)" <timc@hpe.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emu/djVGGpyaB0DP_NbOvhk572Py5f4>
Subject: Re: [Emu] Best practices for supplicants and authenticators
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, 18 Nov 2019 15:43:36 -0000

On Nov 18, 2019, at 10:37 AM, Cappalli, Tim (Aruba) <timc@hpe.com> wrote:
> 
> If the goal is not to improve identity assurance of an EAP server then what is this best practice change actually for?

  I have been *explicit* in my statements that my goal *is* to improve validation of the EAP server identity.  I have no idea how anyone could interpret those statements as meaning the opposite of their clear intent.

  So I have no idea what you're getting at.  Please explain yourself using something *other* than a leading question which gets everything wrong.

  i.e. state a position and defend it.  Attacking a straw man version of someone else's position is unhelpful.

  Alan DeKok.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email