IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [radext] WGLC for draft-ietf-radext-tls-psk-04

Jan-Frederik Rieckers <rieckers@dfn.de> Tue, 23 January 2024 09:25 UTC

Return-Path: <rieckers@dfn.de>
X-Original-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40D78C14F68E for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 01:25:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dfn.de
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UUkbouij_nfK for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 01:25:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from c1004.mx.srv.dfn.de (c1004.mx.srv.dfn.de [IPv6:2001:638:d:c303:acdc:1979:2:58]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F946C14F614 for <radext@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 01:25:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=dfn.de; h= content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:organization:from:from :references:content-language:subject:subject:user-agent :mime-version:date:date:message-id:received; s=s1; t=1706001915; x=1707816316; bh=05TucsunnSa14+d6ZklQPuunaaZ4+nMcbFBrGxgwae4=; b= Srqvww4ZQWXO8qdcwwZ+X/sEVU0vGtBZtLng0OblxHbmzoXSBx7HTF5sJNRO3KNn 0RRu3WDO9jcjdyuH25iYxxTh6RQWEd3r1xMduCKVvus0sNariqaPv8X3snN8hUwS Q18i58M/rn/zeMyGltLoxSRplI9jC+UM/1qmOzELBAE=
Received: from mail.dfn.de (mail.dfn.de [IPv6:2001:638:d:c102::150]) by c1004.mx.srv.dfn.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B0A6120114 for <radext@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 10:25:15 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPV6:2001:638:708:300:5baf:5e56:e1c:adeb] (unknown [IPv6:2001:638:708:300:5baf:5e56:e1c:adeb]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mspool2.in.dfn.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E018D3D6 for <radext@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 10:25:14 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <ae25fac9-47c1-4f00-a655-75d4dd2034fa@dfn.de>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 10:25:11 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
To: radext@ietf.org
References: <005901da242e$f623d550$e26b7ff0$@smyslov.net> <6172ba00-6793-4393-9466-37b52fe1e25b@switch.ch> <651E26F6-B0B2-40A7-B636-88569CFEFCB3@deployingradius.com> <e34c5a26-079d-4988-83b0-c53c3708ef2e@switch.ch> <57B035CF-64CA-4B93-9FEE-929D7DD80D32@deployingradius.com> <3af70e7f-356e-4d49-a1a0-a4c6d270a1a3@switch.ch> <89087622-6499-4B64-8139-75D4464B49A2@deployingradius.com> <02F27A5D-33AD-4B35-BF46-716345E480CA@deployingradius.com> <fa3138fb-875b-409f-814a-ef02d612ce20@dfn.de> <3956CC37-4E8A-4041-8C40-387E8F598237@deployingradius.com>
From: Jan-Frederik Rieckers <rieckers@dfn.de>
Organization: DFN e.V.
In-Reply-To: <3956CC37-4E8A-4041-8C40-387E8F598237@deployingradius.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-512"; boundary="------------ms080100000201050404070009"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/bCjv22P1gBf6Fsv9_gUF86raRx4>
Subject: Re: [radext] WGLC for draft-ietf-radext-tls-psk-04
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: RADIUS EXTensions working group discussion list <radext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/radext>, <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/radext/>
List-Post: <mailto:radext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext>, <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 09:25:25 -0000


On 18.01.24 17:35, Alan DeKok wrote:
> On Jan 18, 2024, at 11:22 AM, Jan-Frederik Rieckers <rieckers@dfn.de> wrote:
>> Not exactly. The document does not (re-)specify a protocol, only how to deal with the implementation of a specification. So Informational or even BCP could be a good document type.
> 
>    "informational" is largely "a vendor did this and wants to document it".
> 
>    So "bcp" seems better.
> 
>> My point is that I would like to avoid to have a new RFC for TLS-PSK that deprecates this current one, once we have RADIUS/(D)TLS-bis published.
> 
>    I agree.
> 
>> I just personally feel that we don't have much benefit of pushing a draft (in this case TLS-PSK) to RFC (regardless of the intended document status), when we know that there is already a document in the queue and about to be finished in the foreseeable future (RADIUS/(D)TLS) that will change some (not world-changing, but at least noticeable) things. And when that document is published, we have to rewrite the TLS-PSK document to match the new spec.
> 
>    I'm not sure the TLSbis document would require any changes to the TLS-PSK document?  I can't think of anything right now.

The thing that is currently inconsistent between the radius-dtls-bis and 
the TLS-PSK draft is the requirement to implement TLS-PSK.

The RADIUS/(D)TLS draft says servers MUST, clients can choose between 
TLS-PSK and PKIX.
This was the result after the consensus call after IETF 117.
This was the mail thread for this:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/LPu7lFa48t4QyAYBGbkzqw-w87Q/

Again, I am not opposed to change the wording in the RADIUS/(D)TLS 
draft, but this should be a decision of the WG. I haven't seen any 
response from other WG members.

We should definitely bring this up at the IETF119.

Cheers,
Janfred

-- 
Herr Jan-Frederik Rieckers
Security, Trust & Identity Services

E-Mail: rieckers@dfn.de | Fon: +49 30884299-339 | Fax: +49 30884299-370
Pronomen: er/sein | Pronouns: he/him
__________________________________________________________________________________

DFN - Deutsches Forschungsnetz | German National Research and Education 
Network
Verein zur Förderung eines Deutschen Forschungsnetzes e.V.
Alexanderplatz 1 | 10178 Berlin
www.dfn.de

DFN - Deutsches Forschungsnetz | German National Research and Education 
Network
Verein zur Förderung eines Deutschen Forschungsnetzes e.V.
Alexanderplatz 1 | 10178 Berlin
https://www.dfn.de

Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Stefan Wesner | Prof. Dr. Helmut Reiser | 
Christian Zens
Geschäftsführung: Dr. Christian Grimm | Jochem Pattloch
VR AG Charlottenburg 7729B | USt.-ID. DE 136623822

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email