This issue is one that I was dealing with while driving grapes back from the
vineyard yesterday.  I don't know that it needs to have any changes in the
draft.  I am putting this out to see if there is any controversy on the
decisions that I would make about this issue.

The client is going to use client authorization with the TLS tunnel.  I make
the assumption that the client does successfully authenticate the server's
certificate and we are not in a total anonymous situation.  At this point I
believe the following possible scenarios exist:

1.  The client provides no certificate - This would be accepted depending on
the server policy about requiring a client certificate to be presented.

2.  The client provides a certificate in the clear - This could be either a
user or machine certificate, the server would check the identity against Its
database (with the proviso that the certificate could be the entry in the
database) and either accepts or rejects the TLS connection based on the
identity presented.  This would be done via a TLS alert.  Note, I did have
an argument with myself about the possibility that the server would accept
the certificate and treat it as if it was an anonymous client.

3.  The client provides the certificate in a protected manner - I had a
problem at this point because I don't know enough TLS to properly go through
this scenario, and I could not really read documents while driving.  If the
encrypted certificate extension was used, then there is no issue as the
protected certificate would be passed in the initial handshake.  However if
the client starts the negotiation and then restarts it after it is
encrypted, I don't know if this occurs before or after the finish message.
If it starts after the finish method then there is an issue with having the
server close an anonymous session if the client is then going to provide the
certificate encrypted.  Help on how this works would be appreciated.

Jim


_______________________________________________
Emu mailing list
Emu@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu

Reply via email to