Re: [TLS] [Emu] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 06 January 2021 00:52 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EFAE3A1037; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 16:52:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 upXNjU9xrhyM; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 16:52:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4A003A1031; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 16:52:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA0063899A; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 19:53:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 9JT9yQwHj9f4; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 19:53:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8F3338999; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 19:53:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AACC115; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 19:52:28 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>, "emu\@ietf.org" <emu@ietf.org>, "tls\@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <FD8C4D2F-8F51-4FD5-9D49-3F143B93CDD7@deployingradius.com>
References: <160815821055.25925.15897627611548078426@ietfa.amsl.com> <20201216223842.GR64351@kduck.mit.edu> <0f2b05db-5c98-43d4-aae3-cf620814bacc@www.fastmail.com> <7745bb87-a946-c739-007d-9d3be1212e19@ericsson.com> <bddc3a92-acd1-46cc-84ad-aea013c544cf@www.fastmail.com> <5E1CF713-D917-4E9A-869F-21A4174D0562@deployingradius.com> <28008.1609862746@localhost> <FD8C4D2F-8F51-4FD5-9D49-3F143B93CDD7@deployingradius.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2021 19:52:28 -0500
Message-ID: <25016.1609894348@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/nlMKTJ75j8CIIf7zRmHK0xJ2JU4>
Subject: Re: [TLS] [Emu] Fwd: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls/>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2021 00:52:32 -0000

pedantically, because I think that there is much confusion here.
Let me go back to the whole sentence:

Alan>  Therefore, we need an explicit signal to the EAP-TLS layer that the
Alan>  EAP-TLS method has finished.  Discussion on the list went back and
Alan>  forth between CloseNotify and sending one octet of application data.
Alan>  Implementations have done both.  The conclusion was that the one octet
Alan>  of application data was slightly easier to implement.

Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> wrote:
    >> Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> wrote:
    >>> Therefore, we need an explicit signal to the EAP-TLS layer that the
    >>
    >> Do you mean, "to the EAP layer"?
    >> s/EAP-TLS layer/EAP/ ??

    > If the EAP-TLS layer allows TLS negotiation OR EAP-Success, then it's
    > possible to bypass TLS by spoofing an EAP-Success.  So the EAP-TLS
    > layer needs to have a way to say "we're done, EAP-Success is now OK".

    > It's really nested:  EAP ( EAP-TLS ( TLS ) )

Okay, so I think that we need:
      1) signal from the TLS layer to EAP-TLS layer
      2) signal from the EAP-TLS layer to the EAP layer

But, you said, above:

     "to the EAP-TLS layer that the EAP-TLS method has finished"

so I still think that there might be a typo :-)

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide