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

Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca> Fri, 11 October 2019 14:19 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 6770A120052; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 07:19:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=1.5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 YGEiefw3YCUn; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 07:19:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A57C512003F; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 07:19:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (x52716a1a.dyn.telefonica.de [82.113.106.26]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8571F1F456; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 14:19:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 2F95434CC; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 16:09:48 +0200 (CEST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
cc: Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net>, "draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13@ietf.org>, John Mattsson <john.mattsson=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, EMU WG <emu@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <AD799A14-8268-4BAF-8925-3567973C7507@cisco.com>
References: <7828_1564869242_5D46027A_7828_348_1_02e001d54a45$e92ae900$bb80bb00$@augustcellars.com> <20b118932a4843b6b88e605799fafea8@aalto.fi> <211AD83C-D111-4EEB-AAF0-D9B5E521F4CF@deployingradius.com> <8F355C6F-DF1E-4E03-B75E-0F1D2508B9D4@ericsson.com> <246280B8-6E5C-484B-95BD-9C940C98C507@deployingradius.com> <CY4PR1101MB22781AB8C8982ACF99B61544DB8E0@CY4PR1101MB2278.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <17E08795-4E4E-4507-8384-836020966BCF@deployingradius.com> <634C375D-FBF3-4297-A5C0-E68C903CA34A@ericsson.com> <CAOgPGoBko6N_JebmisoSk_EJ=Hq21sV3xoXjLw4r7D+OFSsdZA@mail.gmail.com> <CC58A292-03D6-4D70-A11F-B8FEE7311E78@cisco.com> <26738.1570791861@dooku.sandelman.ca> <AD799A14-8268-4BAF-8925-3567973C7507@cisco.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> message dated "Fri, 11 Oct 2019 13:25:26 +0200."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 16:09:48 +0200
Message-ID: <9501.1570802988@dooku.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emu/zlRdtXZ3Dr-rG0gRW40LCxsuN-c>
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: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 14:19:20 -0000

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:
    >> Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:
    >>> Before we nail this down, it seems like we need to have a discussion
    >>> about how best to onboard wired IoT devices in particular from an
    >>> on-prem view.  The issue here is that EAP-TLS-PSK is useful for that
    >>> purpose, as we discussed.  Now there is nothing particularly special
    >>> about PSK and we could run with a naked public key pair as well in
    >>> 1.3, but we have to choose something.
    >> 
    >> okay, so why do you prefer PSK?

    > I do not.  But we need to have *a* flow for on prem onboarding.
    > TLS-PSK is one approach, but there are others.  I just want a
    > discussion before we nail this down, as I wrote.

    >> 
    >>> The fundamental question is what does a manufacturer stamp into the
    >>> device and what is placed on a label.  We have a running example of
    >>> DPP doing this for wireless with public key code, but that doesn’t
    >>> get us to proper onboarding for wired – the signaling just isn’t
    >>> there.
    >> 
    >> I don't understand this.  Are you saying that because it's wired,
    >> people do not expect to scan anything?

    > No quite the opposite- I’m saying that there is at least one way to do
    > this with Wifi, but no way to do this for wired right now, an we need
    > one.

So, can wired just be a degenerate version of wifi, where there can be only
one "ESSID", and there are no beacons to consider?

-- 
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [