[Emu] Re: Call for adoption: draft-reddy-emu-pqc-eap-tls-03 (Ends 2026-05-12)

[tirumal reddy <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 at 17:12, Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Peter and colleagues,
>
> Has anyone created a test implementation with hostap to see if there are
> any ill effects from large key sizes?  Also, I would like to understand the
> relationship of this work, if any, to PLANTS.
>
No, the draft does not discuss merkle-tree certificates. PLANTS targets
WebPKI. While Merkle-tree certificates would help reduce PQC certificate
sizes in EAP deployments, their applicability in this context requires
further analysis.

-Tiru

> Eliot
> On 28.04.2026 12:33, Peter Yee wrote:
>
> I've issued a WG call for adoption on draft-reddy-emu-pqc-eap-tls and would really like to get opinions on whether this work ought to be adopted. The document is fairly short and the only normative section covers additions to EST (RFC 7030) for optimization purposes by allowing the retrieval of intermediate portions of EAP client and EAP server certificate chains to obviate needing to pass them in-band in the TLS handshake. That part runs 2 pages.
>
> Please take a look and send your comments for or against adoption to the mailing list by May 12th.
>
> Thank you in advance.
>
> 		-Peter
>
> On 4/28/26, 11:24 AM, "Peter Yee via Datatracker" <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> This message starts a emu WG Call for Adoption of:
> draft-reddy-emu-pqc-eap-tls-03
>
> This Working Group Call for Adoption ends on 2026-05-12
>
> Abstract:
> This document proposes enhancements to TLS-based EAP methods,
> including the Extensible Authentication Protocol with Transport Layer
> Security (EAP-TLS), EAP Tunneled TLS (EAP-TTLS), Protected EAP
> (PEAP), and EAP Tunnel Method (TEAP), to incorporate post-quantum
> cryptographic mechanisms. It also addresses challenges related to
> large certificate sizes and long certificate chains, as identified in
> [RFC9191], and provides recommendations for integrating PQC
> algorithms into TLS-based EAP deployments.
>
> Please reply to this message and indicate whether or not you support adoption
> of this Internet-Draft by the emu WG. Comments to explain your preference are
> greatly appreciated. Please reply to all recipients of this message and
> include this message in your response.
>
> Authors, and WG participants in general, are reminded of the Intellectual
> Property Rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79 [2].
> Appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions
> of BCP 78 [1] and BCP 79 [2] must be filed, if you are aware of any.
> Sanctions available for application to violators of IETF IPR Policy can be
> found at [3].
>
> Thank you.
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp78/
> [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp79/
> [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6701/
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-reddy-emu-pqc-eap-tls/
>
> There is also an HTML version available at:https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-reddy-emu-pqc-eap-tls-03.html
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-reddy-emu-pqc-eap-tls-03
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emu mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emu mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>