IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Emu] Identities and draft-ietf-emu-tls-eap-types-03

Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> Tue, 03 August 2021 14:50 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 832463A263E for <emu@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Aug 2021 07:50:25 -0700 (PDT)
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 B40_GdeeDOK3 for <emu@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Aug 2021 07:50:21 -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 52D153A263F for <emu@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Aug 2021 07:50:19 -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 CF111216; Tue, 3 Aug 2021 14:50:17 +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 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
In-Reply-To: <SA2PR00MB10024E64C25E84C753A1C78D95F09@SA2PR00MB1002.namprd00.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2021 10:50:16 -0400
Cc: "emu@ietf.org" <emu@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <401598CD-BB36-413A-A866-8ADD9EDAC4ED@deployingradius.com>
References: <502A7B31-1177-477D-B177-D415BAF67E61@deployingradius.com> <F810992C-CD75-493B-ABFB-F56AB838C90F@deployingradius.com> <CO1PR00MB0996467D20415461A83119EA95EF9@CO1PR00MB0996.namprd00.prod.outlook.com> <010AEE0C-2B4B-456B-8022-5FCEF2D6A5CB@deployingradius.com> <SA2PR00MB10024E64C25E84C753A1C78D95F09@SA2PR00MB1002.namprd00.prod.outlook.com>
To: Tim Cappalli <Tim.Cappalli@microsoft.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emu/lHheX7i16nH6L4hRi7cBbm8iGJs>
Subject: Re: [Emu] Identities and draft-ietf-emu-tls-eap-types-03
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: Tue, 03 Aug 2021 14:50:26 -0000

On Aug 3, 2021, at 10:01 AM, Tim Cappalli <Tim.Cappalli@microsoft.com> wrote:
> I fail to understand why this is "a terrible idea". Many organizations, including EDUs have multiple TLDs that are used for sign-in. Cloud IdPs require a fully qualified username.

  Sure.  It's good to see the NAI recommendations of RFC 7542 being more widely adopted.  :)

  My question though is this a use-case for 802.1X?  Are users really capable now of entering one identity for the outer routing, and a completely different one for the inner one?  Or do the users use MDM to do it?

  I haven't seen wide-spread use of different realms in EAP, but maybe I'm not talking to the right people.

> I don't think there should be any text on this topic.

  I think it's useful to give guidance on pros/cons of this issue.  If using different inner/outer realms is a common practice, then it would be good to explain when that's used, and why.

  Alan DeKok.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email