Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-radext-ieee802ext-10

In 802.1X-2010, the EAP Key Name is  actually needed to calculate the session keys. So if it is unavailable, the NAS won't be able to decrypt traffic. Therefore treating the Accept as a Reject is probably the only viable option.

> On Mar 26, 2014, at 5:42 AM, "Jouni Korhonen" <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> I don't think there is anything that needs to be done for 2.2. It is
> a normal capability exchange type of mechanism.
> 
> The text is IMHO clear:
> "in situations where the Attribute is required to provision service.."
> 
> Then the lack of EAP-Key-Name means the service cannot be provisioned
> and the NAS can safely interpret that as an Access-Reject, when 
> appropriate by the deployment.
> 
> NAS doesn't include the attribute if it is not needed. And if it does,
> the current text allows still accepting the service regardless the
> lack of the attribute in the Access-Accept.
> 
> 
> - Jouni
> 
> 
>> On Mar 26, 2014, at 8:55 AM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks for the review. I did not see a response or change regarding 2.1 or 2.2. Does this need to be addressed? Authors?
>> 
>> Jari
>> 
>>> On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:08 PM, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear authors,
>>> 
>>> Can you please follow up on that one.
>>> 
>>> Regards, Benoit
>>>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
>>>> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
>>>> 
>>>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>>> 
>>>> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
>>>> you may receive.
>>>> 
>>>> Document: draft-ietf-radext-ieee802ext-10
>>>> Reviewer: Ben Campbell
>>>> Review Date: 2014-01-31
>>>> IETF LC End Date: 2014-02-04
>>>> 
>>>> Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a standards track RFC. I have a small number of minor comments that may be worth considering prior to publication.
>>>> 
>>>> Major issues: None
>>>> 
>>>> Minor issues:
>>>> 
>>>> -- 2.1, last paragraph:
>>>> 
>>>> Does the last sentence imply Allowed-Called-Station-Id actually should (or SHOULD) not be used in non-wireless scenarios? (I note that the Network-Id-Name section talks about how 802.1X NID-Names should not be included in Called-Station-Id, but rather put in Network-Id-Name. Does that apply here as well?
>>>> 
>>>> -- 2.2, last paragraph: "Since a NAS will typically only include a EAP-Key-Name Attribute in an Access-Request in situations where the Attribute is required to provision service, if an EAP-Key-Name Attribute is included in an Access-Request but is not present in the Access-Accept, the NAS SHOULD treat the Access-Accept as though it were an Access-Reject. "
>>>> 
>>>> Is there a backwards compatibility issue? What if a NAS sends the field to a server that doesn't implement this draft? Is there an assumption that a NAS that supports this draft will only work with a server that also supports it?
>>>> 
>>>> Or more to the point, is the "...typically only include...where required..." strong enough to require a normative SHOULD? Seems like this would discourage the inclusion of EAP-Key-Name in the non-typical case of it _not_ being required. Is that the intent?
>>>> 
>>>> Nits/editorial comments:
>>>> 
>>>> -- section 2.8:
>>>> 
>>>> It might be worth expanding "EAPoL"
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> .
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gen-art mailing list
>>> Gen-art@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
> 