Hao said:
Sorry, I mistyped. I meant to say why not keep the approach used in RFC2716? What's the reason for the change in 2716Bis? [BA] I would agree that the approach used in RFC 2716 is preferrable. As to how the change got into RFC 2716bis, it appears to have been introduced in -01; -00 Section 2.5 contained the original text from RFC 2716. The text inserted into -01 appears to have been taken from the EAP Key Management Framework document, which included similar text in Appendix C in -00, and included an Appendix A on EAP-TLS key management up to version -09 (e.g. see http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-ietf-eap-keying-09.txt). As you noted, the formula in RFC 2716bis appears to imply that two PRFs need to be computed (TLS-PRF-64 and TLS-PRF-128) when in fact only one is needed (a single TLS-PRF-128).
_______________________________________________ Emu mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
