IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Emu] POST WGLC Comments draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13

Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> Tue, 06 August 2019 13:01 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 0CA4D120183; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 06:01:41 -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 0aIE6rgV8Fx7; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 06:01:39 -0700 (PDT)
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 23D5F120170; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 06:01:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.20.21] (ottawa.ca.networkradius.com [72.137.155.194]) by mail.networkradius.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 638A114F2; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 13:01:36 +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 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
In-Reply-To: <02e001d54a45$e92ae900$bb80bb00$@augustcellars.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2019 09:01:34 -0400
Cc: draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13@ietf.org, EMU WG <emu@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CB632611-EC16-4251-A826-37D858ACFC5B@deployingradius.com>
References: <02e001d54a45$e92ae900$bb80bb00$@augustcellars.com>
To: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emu/uKalLBRVW1JxalQlz1vgBIL2DR8>
Subject: Re: [Emu] POST WGLC Comments draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13
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, 06 Aug 2019 13:01:41 -0000

On Aug 3, 2019, at 5:53 PM, Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> wrote:
> 
> In section 5.7 - I am not sure why one could not re-check for revocation
> when doing a resumption, I would expect that this is only server side that
> would do it but the current paragraph two outlaws it.

  I think it's best to *always* apply authorization policies.  The alternative is to allow the server to *not* check authorization policies during resumption.  Which then means that the client is in charge of authorization, not the server.

  Alan DeKok.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email