Hi Alan, The intention with "All other parameters such as MSK and EMSK are derived as specified in EAP-TLS [RFC5216], Section 2.3." was to only mention changes compared to RFC 5216.
Avoiding potential confusion is a very important goal to avoid incompatible implementations. I think we should make any clarification needed to avoid that. Your mail only mentions MSK and EMSK, but I think the situation are similar with Enc-RECV-Key, Enc-SEND-Key, RECV-IV, and SEND-IV. Should all of the following be added to draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13? MSK = Key_Material(0, 63) EMSK = Key_Material(64, 127) Enc-RECV-Key = MSK(0, 31) Enc-SEND-Key = MSK(32, 63) RECV-IV = IV(0, 31) SEND-IV = IV(32, 63) Cheers, John _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
