Hi Bernard,

Thanks for the update.  I'd like to have some discussion on section 2.4
- Identity verification.  Currently the section states that the peer
identity is obtained from the subjectAltName in the certificate.  Is
this text meant to be normative?  Currently there are implementations
that use elements of the subject distinguished name and do not provide a
subjectAltName. 

Perhaps it would be better to say the subjectAltName is used if it is
present and if it is not then the subject distinguished name is used.
However it seems that RFC3280 might indicate that it would be better to
use subject distinguished name if it is present and subjectAltName if
not. This section should  reference RFC3280.   Also is there any reason
why mapping using a directory service is called out, isn't just mapping
to a Peer-ID or Server-ID sufficient?

It would may also be good to say that an EAP-TLS implementation MAY make
other certificate fields available to the lower layer.

The document should also state in the security considerations section
that the identity in the identity response is not necessarily related to
the identity authenticated in EAP-TLS and should not be relied upon for
any access control or accounting purposes. 


Joe

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernard Aboba [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 6:57 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [Emu] Review requested: draft-simon-emu-rfc2716bis-03.txt
> 
> I have updated RFC 2716bis with a list of changes, added a 
> section on privacy, rewritten the key hierarchy section to 
> utilize modern terminology (MSK, EMSK), and updated the 
> security considerations section.
> 
> The updated document is available here:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-simon-emu-rfc2716bis-03.txt
> 
> Comments welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Emu mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
> 

_______________________________________________
Emu mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu

Reply via email to