Thanks,
Good to know that RFC 5448 (EAP-AKA’) and aka-pfs have protected result
indicators. I missed that RFC 5448 gets this from RFC 4187.
John
-Original Message-
From: "jari.ar...@piuha.net"
Date: Monday, 8 February 2021 at 18:07
To: John Mattsson
Cc: EMU WG
Subject: Re: [Emu]
John,
This may be a side note in the TLS discussion, but just looked at the below
list:
> Looking at the other active documents in the EMU WG:
>
> draft-ietf-emu-rfc5448bis
> draft-ietf-emu-aka-pfs
> […]
> None of them has a protected alternate indication of success […]
And it seems to me
Hi all,
I am catching up on all the discussion of protected indication of success. I
think it is important to note that protected indication of success can be
exchanged in both directions (i.e. peer to server and server to peer). For
example, RFC 3748 says:
For example, within EAP-TLS
Hi John, all:
First of all my apoligies if some thoughts in my e-mail have been already
discussed. Please see inline.
> El 6 feb 2021, a las 10:43, John Mattsson
> escribió:
>
> Hi,
>
> Bernard brought up compability with RFC 4137 and the need for protected
> alternate indication of
Hi,
Bernard brought up compability with RFC 4137 and the need for protected
alternate indication of success in the context of EAP-TLS 1.3
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emu/F-LcEX3UbAEX20Amk0xBBqfPQNQ/
I think we need to discuss this in a general EAP setting as this in not EAP-TLS
