On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 2:10 PM Alan DeKok <al...@deployingradius.com> wrote:

> On Feb 2, 2021, at 4:42 PM, John Mattsson <john.mattsson=
> 40ericsson....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> > 4. was something I thought was clear. The -13 version states that “The
> EAP-TLS server commits to not send any more handshake messages”. This was
> according to my memory exactly what was requested from the implementors.
>
>   The text is in draft-mattsson-eap-tls13-02, but not in
> draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13-00.  The announcement message is here:
>
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emu/8Axkmgh_ZPCTwhvmRjVMvXGTKko/
>
>   Which doesn't mention the commitment message.  I can't find any other
> discussion about the commitment message on the archive.  That doesn't
> necessarily mean much, as the archive is difficult to search.
>
>   So it's not clear where that came from.
>
>
[Joe] I think this message from Jouni explains the original impetus to add
the commit message.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emu/SBdblHmLQTbBwoZHK8Rih-g5ne8/
What I'm gathering from this discussion is the state machine between TLS
1.3 and 1.2 is different enoguh that EAP-TLS implementations are going to
have to account for it.


> > In the last weeks discussion, the commitment message has been given a
> lot of different interpretations that are not coming from the draft. The
> meaning of and requirements for the -13 commitment message now seems quite
> unclear.
>
>   An in-progress draft is not an authoritative source of information.  The
> WG is discussing what the commitment message means, with an eye to making
> recommendations for the draft, and implementors.
>
  Alan DeKok.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emu mailing list
> Emu@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
>
_______________________________________________
Emu mailing list
Emu@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu

Reply via email to