Re: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT
Andreas Steffen <andreas.steffen@strongswan.org> Wed, 03 August 2011 05:55 UTC
Return-Path: <andreas.steffen@strongswan.org>
X-Original-To: nea@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nea@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7197611E80F8 for <nea@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 22:55:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.988
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.988 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wv0PoVb+iKkm for <nea@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 22:55:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from strongswan.org (sitav-80024.hsr.ch [152.96.80.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9464011E80D6 for <nea@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 22:55:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gprs51.swisscom-mobile.ch ([193.247.250.51] helo=[10.139.40.11]) by strongswan.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <andreas.steffen@strongswan.org>) id 1QoUQd-00072Y-Px; Wed, 03 Aug 2011 07:55:40 +0200
Message-ID: <4E38E2D9.9010503@strongswan.org>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 07:55:37 +0200
From: Andreas Steffen <andreas.steffen@strongswan.org>
Organization: strongSwan Project
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: nea@ietf.org
References: <6065F7697E427240893C1B5CF41828967EF7D4@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <6065F7697E427240893C1B5CF41828967EF7D4@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT
X-BeenThere: nea@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Endpoint Assessment discussion list <nea.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/nea>, <mailto:nea-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nea>
List-Post: <mailto:nea@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nea-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea>, <mailto:nea-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 05:55:44 -0000
Hi, my choice is option 1) PT-EAP. The advantage of using an inner EAP protocol for PT in an IKEv2 context is that within the outer TLS tunnel the initial EAP-Identity exchange, an ensuing EAP-based client authentication (e.g. EAP-MD5 or EAP-MSCHAPv2) and finally EAP-PT can be handled in a consistent way by loading the corresponding EAP plugins. Best regards Andreas On 02.08.2011 23:04, Susan Thomson (sethomso) wrote: > At IETF81 and several prior IETF meetings, as well as on the mailing > list, the WG has evaluated the pros and cons of 2 architectural > approaches to carrying posture within an EAP tunnel method: > > - EAP method > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hanna-nea-pt-eap-01.txt > > - EAP TLV. > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-cam-winget-eap-tlv-03.txt > > So far, there has been no WG consensus to adopt one architecture versus > the other. (At the recent F2F meeting in Quebec City, the consensus > check at the meeting showed an equal number in favor of each approach.) > > This email is a final call to determine WG consensus on the L2 PT > approach. > > The consensus check is to choose one of the following 3 options: > 1) PT-EAP approach > 2) NEA-TLV approach > 3) Neither (please state the reason if you choose this option) > > Please respond to the above question by Tues Aug 16 at 5pm PT. Please do > so even if you have already expressed your opinion, either at a WG > meeting or on the mailing list. The answer can be as brief as selecting > option 1), 2) or 3). If you would like to add your reasons for your > choice, that would be appreciated too, especially if you choose option > 3). > > If we have consensus on the mailing list, we will adopt the selected > approach. > > If we still do not have consensus, the WG chairs and AD (Stephen > Farrell) have agreed that the AD will make a decision. The proponents of > both approaches have agreed to abide by this decision. This resolution > plan was discussed at the F2F meeting at IETF81. This plan was also > communicated to the list in an email on Jun 30, 2011. No objections have > been received. > > In either case, the individual submission corresponding to the selected > approach will be adopted as a -00 NEA WG I-D, and we will proceed with > the normal process of editing the document within the WG. > > Thanks > Susan ====================================================================== Andreas Steffen andreas.steffen@strongswan.org strongSwan - the Linux VPN Solution! www.strongswan.org Institute for Internet Technologies and Applications University of Applied Sciences Rapperswil CH-8640 Rapperswil (Switzerland) ===========================================================[ITA-HSR]==
- [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT Susan Thomson (sethomso)
- Re: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT Ira McDonald
- Re: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT Stephen Hanna
- Re: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT Sanchez, Mauricio (HP Networking)
- Re: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT Hao Zhou
- Re: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT Frank Yeh Jr
- Re: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT Alan DeKok
- Re: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT Andreas Steffen
- Re: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT Joe Salowey
- Re: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT Klaas Wierenga
- Re: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT Lisa Lorenzin
- Re: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT Marc Linsner
- [Nea] Protecting L2 PT when proxying Stephen Hanna
- Re: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT Mike Fratto
- Re: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT john.willis
- Re: [Nea] Protecting L2 PT when proxying Joe Salowey
- Re: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT Joe Salowey
- Re: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT Jouni Malinen
- Re: [Nea] Protecting L2 PT when proxying Stephen Hanna
- Re: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT Nancy Cam-Winget
- Re: [Nea] Protecting L2 PT when proxying Joe Salowey
- Re: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT latze@angry-red-pla.net
- Re: [Nea] Protecting L2 PT when proxying Stephen Hanna
- Re: [Nea] Protecting L2 PT when proxying Mike Fratto
- Re: [Nea] Protecting L2 PT when proxying Joe Salowey
- Re: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT kaushik narayan
- Re: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT Paul Sangster
- Re: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT Stephen McCann