[Emu] RFC 7170 (TEAP) errata

[Jouni Malinen <[e-mail]>]

I've filed number of errata entries against RFC 7170. The email responses
from rfc-editor seem to be cc'ed to this mailing list, but I don't receive
them from the list or see them in the list archive. Anyway, if there are
anyone here who would be interested in getting these reports reviewed and
the issues addressed, that would be most helpful.

Some of these items are significant technical issues that prevent me from
implemented the protocol and would also make me question how any
implementation of TEAP would actually be able to comply with the RFC I can
figure out the most likely answers to some of the entries, but there is no
straightforward way of resolving the issues related to

(1) Crypto-Binding TLV format for the cases where the negotiated TLS cipher
suite uses SHA256 (or SHA384, for that matter) instead of SHA-1 (and I'd
hope all deployments of TEAP would be recent enough to avoid use of
SHA-1..):
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5768

(2) S-IMCK[j] derivation when inner EAP methods in the sequence derive both
MSK and EMSK (or even more complicated, if there are multiple inner EAP
authentication methods that have difference in whether they derive MSK or
EMSK):
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5770

I'd hope to avoid having to guess or make my own specification of how this
is supposed to work before being able to implement this (and then have to
re-implement everything if others disagree with that interpretation/guess
on the design), so any feedback on these items would be very welcome so
that there would be a general agreement on how the protocol is supposed to
work to provide better chances for getting interoperable implementations.

- Jouni