Hi everyone,
The terminology is correct, although we understand the source of the confusion.
In this document, we use the terms Initiator and Responder as defined in
RFC9528. Accordingly, the Initiator is the entity that sends EDHOC message_1,
which in EAP-EDHOC is the EAP peer. Likewise, the Responder is the EAP server.
Therefore, the roles are not reversed.
The confusion likely arises because the first EAP-EDHOC-related message is sent
by the EAP authenticator. However, that message is the EDHOC Start message,
which is introduced by this specification and is distinct from EDHOC message_1.
To make this distinction clearer and avoid ambiguity, we propose updating the
definitions in Section 2 as follows in the next revision of the draft:
"* Initiator - In EAP-EDHOC, the EAP peer assumes the role of the EDHOC
Initiator; therefore, the terms "Initiator" and "EAP peer" are used
interchangeably in this document. As defined in {{RFC9528}}, the Initiator is
the entity that sends EDHOC message_1. This role must not be confused with the
sender of the EDHOC Start message introduced in this specification.
* Responder - In EAP-EDHOC, the EAP server assumes the role of the EDHOC
Responder; therefore, the terms "Responder" and "EAP server" are used
interchangeably in this document. The term is defined in {{RFC9528}}."
Thank you for the comment.
Best regards,
The EAP-EDHOC authors.
Francisco López Gómez
Predoctoral Researcher
Dept. Ingeniería de la Información y las Comunicaciones
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
[logo UMU]<https://www.um.es>
[logo euniwell]<https://www.euniwell.eu/>
[logo hr]<https://www.um.es/web/hrs4r>
[logo CMN]<https://www.campusmarenostrum.es/>
________________________________
De: Deb Cooley via Datatracker <[email protected]>
Enviado: martes, 2 de junio de 2026 12:05
Para: The IESG <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>;
[email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>;
[email protected] <[email protected]>
Asunto: Deb Cooley's No Objection on draft-ietf-emu-eap-edhoc-10: (with COMMENT)
Deb Cooley has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-emu-eap-edhoc-10: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Qy5iI2sfNh2znEo0Cc_5bHHDQ9KKlAuw-G-nzS8_qgVD1AJs0lu4SGWUBE8Rn1GflAcZqHKF4TY7jYtEu7Qs$
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-emu-eap-edhoc/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Qy5iI2sfNh2znEo0Cc_5bHHDQ9KKlAuw-G-nzS8_qgVD1AJs0lu4SGWUBE8Rn1GflAcZqHKF4TY7jUZC_hYs$
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 2: For EAP, I thought the initiator was the server, and the responder
was the peer. The definitions here appear to be backwards. Figure 1 in
Section 3.1.1, seems to agree with my understanding, as does the rest of the
draft.
_______________________________________________
Emu mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
