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