Re: [radext] Last Call: <draft-ietf-radext-tls-psk-09.txt> (RADIUS and TLS-PSK) to Best Current Practice
Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> Mon, 04 March 2024 18:48 UTC
Return-Path: <aland@deployingradius.com>
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 0BCF0C1654EF for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 10:48:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 URD77j2Dt4LG for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 10:48:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.networkradius.com (mail.networkradius.com [62.210.147.122]) (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 8EC58C17C8B6 for <radext@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 10:48:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (135-23-95-173.cpe.pppoe.ca [135.23.95.173]) by mail.networkradius.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AF8A8303; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 18:48:06 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: NetworkRADIUS; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=deployingradius.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.1\))
From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
In-Reply-To: <314f983b-e4bd-dd57-1bf6-e9c0ae6584fe@lounge.org>
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2024 13:48:05 -0500
Cc: radext@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D3D105CD-D37C-44C1-9B98-E09A8DB4A2F5@deployingradius.com>
References: <170924996431.21580.16101186037463031061@ietfa.amsl.com> <314f983b-e4bd-dd57-1bf6-e9c0ae6584fe@lounge.org>
To: Dan Harkins <dharkins@lounge.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/zLAwGrk4cPl-2X07P8qST0anEk8>
Subject: Re: [radext] Last Call: <draft-ietf-radext-tls-psk-09.txt> (RADIUS and TLS-PSK) to Best Current Practice
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: Mon, 04 Mar 2024 18:48:14 -0000
On Mar 4, 2024, at 12:57 PM, Dan Harkins <dharkins@lounge.org> wrote: > Is there a reason that RFC 8773 is not being recommended by this draft? I wasn't aware of 8773. On quick examination, it looks like it has almost all of the issues of certificate-based authentication. i.e. it still needs a server certificate, which means that the CA has to be configured, as we can't use web CAs. For implementors and operators, the utility of TLS-PSK is that it's just a blob. There's no management once it's configured, and no one needs to manage their own CA infrastructure, or go begging to the web CA infrastructure. I can add some text to the document mentioning 8773, but I don't think it changes anything substantial with the use-case this document is addressing. Alan DeKok.