From emu-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 02 01:30:16 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I5EUF-0001zL-NF; Mon, 02 Jul 2007 01:30:11 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I5EUE-0001zG-FE for emu@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jul 2007 01:30:10 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70] helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I5EU8-0000y2-AP for emu@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jul 2007 01:30:08 -0400 Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Jul 2007 22:30:03 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.16,484,1175497200"; d="scan'208"; a="5964534:sNHT27152928" Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (sj-core-4.cisco.com [171.68.223.138]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l625U3q3031033 for ; Sun, 1 Jul 2007 22:30:03 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l625TwGa001173 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2007 05:30:03 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-225.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.38]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 1 Jul 2007 22:30:00 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 22:30:04 -0700 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Draft agenda for IETF 69 Thread-Index: Ace8agsjHv7IM/j6SxqF6K2vsjRPDw== From: "Joseph Salowey \(jsalowey\)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jul 2007 05:30:00.0716 (UTC) FILETIME=[0903FCC0:01C7BC6A] DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=509; t=1183354203; x=1184218203; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jsalowey@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Joseph=20Salowey=20\(jsalowey\)=22=20 |Subject:=20Draft=20agenda=20for=20IETF=2069 |Sender:=20; bh=gUdl68Lq6RH0CPpYHvGTYGzlQV3t99eOMr1H0WKI9xk=; b=SJwCp7ovMiNWCO2rLN5N1mEJAb4uGyEJMMcGNQCAhwsqPyJRKztWoz2NamnJ5ICBbzQ9gswb KCX9z+TqcuHKTJxjv+ZImxaCDzH2kBQIVP7qb5BNpwTc/N3i8Y20kFz3; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=jsalowey@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d Subject: [Emu] Draft agenda for IETF 69 X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emu-bounces@ietf.org Below is a draft agenda for IETF 69. Please send me requests for presentation time, additions or corrections. Cheers, Joe EMU Agenda ---------------------------- IETF 69 - Chicago Tuesday - July 24, 2007 ---------------------------- + Administrivia (5 min) Note takers, blue sheets, agenda bashing + Document Status (20 min) EAP-TLS (5 min) EAP-GPSK (15 min) + IEEE Liaison Request (25 min) + Password based method (60 min) Presentations (25 min) Discussion (35 min) _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu From emu-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 05 11:06:57 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I6Sv2-0001Yv-VQ; Thu, 05 Jul 2007 11:06:56 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I6Sv1-0001YM-NL for emu@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jul 2007 11:06:55 -0400 Received: from mailfe01.tele2.fr ([212.247.154.12] helo=swip.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I6Sux-000598-8g for emu@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jul 2007 11:06:55 -0400 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0.000000 [] Received: from [137.194.164.56] (account eu968071@tele2.fr HELO VAIO.tele2.fr) by mailfe01.swip.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.10) with ESMTPA id 518580327; Thu, 05 Jul 2007 17:06:49 +0200 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2007 17:06:41 +0200 To: "Joseph Salowey \(jsalowey\)" , From: Pascal Urien In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Message-ID: X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f607d15ccc2bc4eaf3ade8ffa8af02a0 Cc: Subject: [Emu] EAP-BIO - Draft agenda for IETF 69 X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emu-bounces@ietf.org Hi Joe, I propose to make a 10' presentation about biometric requirements in the EMU context Basically minutiae size (for fingerprint) ranges from 300 bytes to 1,000 bytes There are several standards that deal with minutiae format such as ISO 19794-2, ANSI 378 and CBEFF (NIST). The exchange of minutiae requires mutual authentication, data confidentiality and integrity It seems to me that it could be understood as a particular case in the EMU context. Best Regards Pascal At 07:30 02/07/2007, Joseph Salowey \(jsalowey\) wrote: >Below is a draft agenda for IETF 69. Please send me requests for >presentation time, additions or corrections. > >Cheers, > >Joe > >EMU Agenda >---------------------------- >IETF 69 - Chicago >Tuesday - July 24, 2007 >---------------------------- > >+ Administrivia (5 min) > >Note takers, blue sheets, agenda bashing > >+ Document Status (20 min) > >EAP-TLS (5 min) >EAP-GPSK (15 min) > >+ IEEE Liaison Request (25 min) > >+ Password based method (60 min) > >Presentations (25 min) >Discussion (35 min) > > >_______________________________________________ >Emu mailing list >Emu@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu From emu-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 05 11:15:34 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I6T3O-0003gW-0b; Thu, 05 Jul 2007 11:15:34 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I6T3M-0003d1-LQ; Thu, 05 Jul 2007 11:15:32 -0400 Received: from ns3.neustar.com ([156.154.24.138]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I6T3M-0001Sq-Ep; Thu, 05 Jul 2007 11:15:32 -0400 Received: from stiedprstage1.ietf.org (stiedprstage1.va.neustar.com [10.31.47.10]) by ns3.neustar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ABFD175D7; Thu, 5 Jul 2007 15:15:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ietf by stiedprstage1.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1I6T2r-0000W5-No; Thu, 05 Jul 2007 11:15:01 -0400 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Message-Id: Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2007 11:15:01 -0400 X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 10d3e4e3c32e363f129e380e644649be Cc: emu@ietf.org Subject: [Emu] I-D ACTION:draft-simon-emu-rfc2716bis-11.txt X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emu-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the EAP Method Update Working Group of the IETF. Title : The EAP TLS Authentication Protocol Author(s) : D. Simon, et al. Filename : draft-simon-emu-rfc2716bis-11.txt Pages : 31 Date : 2007-7-5 The Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP), defined in RFC 3748, provides support for multiple authentication methods. Transport Level Security (TLS) provides for mutual authentication, integrity- protected ciphersuite negotiation and key exchange between two endpoints. This document defines EAP-TLS, which includes support for certificate-based mutual authentication and key derivation. This document obsoletes RFC 2716. A summary of the changes between this document and RFC 2716 is available in Appendix A. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-simon-emu-rfc2716bis-11.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-simon-emu-rfc2716bis-11.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-simon-emu-rfc2716bis-11.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2007-7-5102833.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-simon-emu-rfc2716bis-11.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-simon-emu-rfc2716bis-11.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2007-7-5102833.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu --NextPart-- From emu-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 06 15:15:44 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I6tHM-0007PD-7A; Fri, 06 Jul 2007 15:15:44 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I6tHJ-0007NU-VA; Fri, 06 Jul 2007 15:15:42 -0400 Received: from ns3.neustar.com ([156.154.24.138]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I6tHA-00056W-Fv; Fri, 06 Jul 2007 15:15:41 -0400 Received: from stiedprstage1.ietf.org (stiedprstage1.va.neustar.com [10.31.47.10]) by ns3.neustar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37407175DF; Fri, 6 Jul 2007 19:15:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ietf by stiedprstage1.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1I6tGf-0006Qc-QX; Fri, 06 Jul 2007 15:15:01 -0400 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Message-Id: Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 15:15:01 -0400 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b7b9551d71acde901886cc48bfc088a6 Cc: emu@ietf.org Subject: [Emu] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-emu-eap-gpsk-06.txt X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emu-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the EAP Method Update Working Group of the IETF. Title : EAP Generalized Pre-Shared Key (EAP-GPSK) Author(s) : C. Clancy, H. Tschofenig Filename : draft-ietf-emu-eap-gpsk-06.txt Pages : 35 Date : 2007-7-6 This Internet Draft defines an Extensible Authentication Protocol method called EAP Generalized Pre-Shared Key (EAP-GPSK). This method is a lightweight shared-key authentication protocol supporting mutual authentication and key derivation. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-emu-eap-gpsk-06.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-emu-eap-gpsk-06.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-emu-eap-gpsk-06.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2007-7-6142157.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-emu-eap-gpsk-06.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-emu-eap-gpsk-06.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2007-7-6142157.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu --NextPart-- From emu-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 09 17:30:12 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I80o8-0000G9-Kx; Mon, 09 Jul 2007 17:30:12 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I80o7-0000AX-8B for emu@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Jul 2007 17:30:11 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I80o2-0007Pg-Q2 for emu@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Jul 2007 17:30:11 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 09 Jul 2007 21:30:05 -0000 Received: from p54987D81.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.1.4]) [84.152.125.129] by mail.gmx.net (mp053) with SMTP; 09 Jul 2007 23:30:05 +0200 X-Authenticated: #29516787 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+gyDU9INigNPECyJX95/mxutlzqVJXfnY0SeY/6d R4q1cCaICJ/pT8 Message-ID: <4692A8D9.2000608@gmx.net> Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 23:30:01 +0200 From: Hannes Tschofenig User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (Windows/20070604) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: emu@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: de4f315c9369b71d7dd5909b42224370 Subject: [Emu] updated EAP-GPSK X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emu-bounces@ietf.org I've submitted an update to the EAP-GPSK draft: http://www.tschofenig.com/svn/draft-clancy-emu-eap-gpsk/draft-ietf-emu-eap-gpsk-06.txt Changes: * fixed the description of flexibility in the introduction section * added terms to the terminology section * minor update to the key derivation section * clarified the vendor-specific ciphersuite usage * modified the length of the CSuite/Vendor and CSuite/Specifier format * added reference to AES * fixed minor bugs in the examples * updated IANA Considerations section Ciao Hannes _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu From emu-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 12 15:06:42 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I93zu-0000Rf-8P; Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:06:42 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I93zt-0000RS-6Q for emu@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:06:41 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com ([171.68.10.86]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I93zp-0001DU-PL for emu@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:06:41 -0400 Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Jul 2007 12:06:37 -0700 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ao8CAHcYlkarR7MV/2dsb2JhbAA X-IronPort-AV: i="4.16,533,1175497200"; d="scan'208"; a="6684988:sNHT13361562" Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l6CJ6bMX010941; Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:06:37 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l6CJ6Yka003362; Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:06:37 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-225.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.38]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:06:27 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:06:33 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: EAP-BIO - Draft agenda for IETF 69 Thread-Index: Ace/Fh//vL/lRXRGSjWjrvYEZwrdugFoV71w From: "Joseph Salowey \(jsalowey\)" To: "Pascal Urien" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Jul 2007 19:06:27.0989 (UTC) FILETIME=[BFD62450:01C7C4B7] DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1877; t=1184267197; x=1185131197; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jsalowey@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Joseph=20Salowey=20\(jsalowey\)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20EAP-BIO=20-=20Draft=20agenda=20for=20IETF=2069=20 |Sender:=20; bh=tJc082GOClj3ONNzp1OvlEDzefMgCMkwLfJ4AHGHijA=; b=tV6THsr60y4Yj4dwspxkUQUOHj7Bple0f8nZNMi+5SzjHNQeK51BRxJaKrPfnde9qZkXCb1a avqJNHYipZT/HoPuFufHERsGzo9Z3ypLB/TXCrSZuXBZ4SonCIH5iE97K7CRNCaCHkNx/uxvbQ DzynpWcsOhjkQ11JKDFqWO88U=; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=jsalowey@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0fa76816851382eb71b0a882ccdc29ac Cc: Subject: [Emu] RE: EAP-BIO - Draft agenda for IETF 69 X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emu-bounces@ietf.org Hi Pascal, The EMU agenda is full with current chartered working group items, so I do not think we can reserve time for this. If we finish these items early it may be possible to present this work. Thanks, Joe=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Pascal Urien [mailto:urienp@tele2.fr]=20 > Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 8:07 AM > To: Joseph Salowey (jsalowey); emu@ietf.org > Subject: EAP-BIO - Draft agenda for IETF 69=20 >=20 > Hi Joe, >=20 > I propose to make a 10' presentation about biometric=20 > requirements in > the EMU context >=20 > Basically minutiae size (for fingerprint) ranges from 300=20 > bytes to 1,000 bytes >=20 > There are several standards that deal with minutiae format=20 > such as ISO 19794-2, > ANSI 378 and CBEFF (NIST). >=20 > The exchange of minutiae requires mutual authentication, =20 > data confidentiality and integrity >=20 > It seems to me that it could be understood as a=20 > particular case in the EMU context. >=20 >=20 > Best Regards >=20 > Pascal >=20 >=20 > At 07:30 02/07/2007, Joseph Salowey \(jsalowey\) wrote: > >Below is a draft agenda for IETF 69. Please send me requests for > >presentation time, additions or corrections. > > > >Cheers, > > > >Joe > > > >EMU Agenda > >---------------------------- > >IETF 69 - Chicago > >Tuesday - July 24, 2007 > >---------------------------- > > > >+ Administrivia (5 min) > > > >Note takers, blue sheets, agenda bashing > > > >+ Document Status (20 min) > > > >EAP-TLS (5 min) > >EAP-GPSK (15 min) > > > >+ IEEE Liaison Request (25 min) > > > >+ Password based method (60 min) > > > >Presentations (25 min) > >Discussion (35 min) > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Emu mailing list > >Emu@ietf.org > >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu >=20 _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu From emu-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 17 17:12:17 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IAuLB-0006Mx-8N; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:12:17 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IAuL8-0006Mn-N4 for emu@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:12:16 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IAuL6-0007n2-Vx for emu@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:12:14 -0400 Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Jul 2007 14:12:12 -0700 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ao8CAH/NnEarR7MV/2dsb2JhbAA X-IronPort-AV: i="4.16,547,1175497200"; d="scan'208"; a="504178974:sNHT43373636" Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l6HLCCTu001503 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:12:12 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l6HLCCA0010570 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 21:12:12 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-225.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.38]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:12:12 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:12:18 -0700 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Document Shepherd write-up for rfc 2716bis Thread-Index: AcfItygm2zmA1bO3SIOtZ2l1iTor0A== From: "Joseph Salowey \(jsalowey\)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Jul 2007 21:12:12.0140 (UTC) FILETIME=[2490FAC0:01C7C8B7] DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=5812; t=1184706732; x=1185570732; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jsalowey@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Joseph=20Salowey=20\(jsalowey\)=22=20 |Subject:=20Document=20Shepherd=20write-up=20for=20rfc=202716bis |Sender:=20; bh=fkTJkSzqwaGErrrXooglsrTZz7cdAm2A0gnprRRCGgc=; b=k8TgEuXccBapdy+XWnRmOkBKvzZhoPo/ZOH9cC9sa+I8aN9Wi/1njEj7qlspTw62kDUL0eIh UaXhbQuHfJsj5XFBIu32jYUt+w2pJVmguWhBkCev2eDJWBn9hNy+oXdZQq6RnPyahOj7v8Y5g+ GV0/VAnmKk+Squqwq11ObORAk=; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=jsalowey@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 093efd19b5f651b2707595638f6c4003 Subject: [Emu] Document Shepherd write-up for rfc 2716bis X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emu-bounces@ietf.org Below is the Document Shepherd write-up for rfc2716bis. I will forward the document (draft-simon-emu-rfc2716bis-11.txt) to the IESG after the Meeting in Chicago.=20 (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Joe Salowey, the working group chair, is the document shepherd for this document and has personally reviewed the document and believe it is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? They document has received adequate review from both working group and non WG members. This includes members of the TLS and PKIX community. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? No (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. The document Shepherd is not aware of any specific concerns. =20 (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The document represents a reasonably strong consensus with the active members of the working group in favor of the document moving forward. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) No. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? Yes (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. The document has split references with no downward or dependent references (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? IANA considerations section exists and is consistent with the body of the document. Appropriate registries are requested, identified and populated with initial values. =20 (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? Not applicable (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary =20 The Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP), defined in RFC 3748, provides support for multiple authentication methods. Transport Level Security (TLS) provides for mutual authentication, integrity-protected ciphersuite negotiation and key exchange between two endpoints. This document defines EAP-TLS, which includes support for certificate-based mutual authentication and key derivation. This document obsoletes RFC 2716 to bring EAP-TLS into the standards track.=20 Working Group Summary=20 The document represents rough consensus of the working group.=20 Document Quality=20 =09 There are many interoperable implementation of EAP-TLS deployed today. This document has been reviewed by people involved in the EAP, TLS and PKIX working groups. =20 Personnel=20 Joe Salowey, the EMU chair, is the document shepherd. The responsible Area Director is Sam Hartman.=20 _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu From emu-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 17 17:19:46 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IAuSQ-0007y0-3L; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:19:46 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IAuSP-0007xn-2c for emu@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:19:45 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IAuSN-00080W-Ny for emu@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:19:45 -0400 Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Jul 2007 14:19:28 -0700 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ao8CAH/OnEarR7MV/2dsb2JhbAA X-IronPort-AV: i="4.16,547,1175497200"; d="scan'208"; a="504181988:sNHT4939538766" Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l6HLJSIA013343 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:19:28 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l6HLJS6C005924 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 21:19:28 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-225.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.38]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:19:27 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:19:34 -0700 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Updated agenda for IETF 69 Thread-Index: AcfIuCwhlBioNpXUTDu8v8XrVEFX0A== From: "Joseph Salowey \(jsalowey\)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Jul 2007 21:19:28.0103 (UTC) FILETIME=[286BA770:01C7C8B8] DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=474; t=1184707168; x=1185571168; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jsalowey@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Joseph=20Salowey=20\(jsalowey\)=22=20 |Subject:=20Updated=20agenda=20for=20IETF=2069 |Sender:=20; bh=TnpJQLYhHQjpSrJHgyl3rIxFVZ8APaYnLauRe7DZw5E=; b=trlSmhJQP6YT8d0KJs1YiDqf+E9vnDxxMbshzbFwBZz6qFySh36hMrvA43jZ/INfL89oLq48 3ieTXq1azxaDiqphH4OZUksiReX75RFwrolekjCr6UycP5WY83o4iBs50dldpLuutuBTKkzwWI 7/A3nfpfHWMMDN2YdYWRYe9ko=; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=jsalowey@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007 Subject: [Emu] Updated agenda for IETF 69 X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emu-bounces@ietf.org EMU Agenda ---------------------------- IETF 69 - Chicago Tuesday - July 24, 2007 ---------------------------- + Administrivia (5 min) Note takers, blue sheets, agenda bashing + Document Status (20 min) EAP-TLS (5 min) EAP-GPSK (15 min) + IEEE Liaison Request (20 min) + Password based method (75 min) Requirements (10 min) PP-EAP - draft-zhou-emu-pp-eap-01.txt (20 min) EAP-TTLS - draft-funk-eap-ttls-v0-01.txt (20 min) Discussion (25 min) _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu From emu-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 17 17:31:35 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IAudr-0001eU-QY; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:31:35 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IAudq-0001eH-Ns for emu@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:31:34 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.71] helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IAudp-0008FE-Gg for emu@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:31:34 -0400 Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Jul 2007 14:31:34 -0700 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ao8CAPLRnEarR7MV/2dsb2JhbAA X-IronPort-AV: i="4.16,547,1175497200"; d="scan'208"; a="386319981:sNHT46912218" Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l6HLVW8C000960 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:31:32 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l6HLVW6C016975 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 21:31:32 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-225.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.38]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:31:32 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:31:39 -0700 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Requirements for a password based method Thread-Index: AcfIudwYoIh0rkLVSnawrPGbvekI0g== From: "Joseph Salowey \(jsalowey\)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Jul 2007 21:31:32.0757 (UTC) FILETIME=[D8591450:01C7C8B9] DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1003; t=1184707892; x=1185571892; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jsalowey@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Joseph=20Salowey=20\(jsalowey\)=22=20 |Subject:=20Requirements=20for=20a=20password=20based=20method |Sender:=20; bh=UO9lpeK89PU9OGOVPRaGYRJh1fs20QQASKlbMuyS7Lk=; b=rC/bKpSn9bpwkFywCPxgiJ9G1MD5pKga7C6+c3UOMUQZXAAyyVJh7mIQ80jzEOIgUIzw74CX WyYqYXW74ElUEkPYdeIUqRch5ipfsnNPKIPH2HKlUUHXUiduv0rCalae4RVCR4TzK5BD4SoC6o OTUJUDTHuADSg9SslJVDIDqYc=; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=jsalowey@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab Subject: [Emu] Requirements for a password based method X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emu-bounces@ietf.org Here are a list of requirements that were discussed at the Prague meeting for a password based method: 1. Transport of encrypted password for support of legacy password databases (REQUIRED) 2. Mutual authentication (specifically authentication of the server) (REQUIRED) 3. resistance to offline dictionary attacks, man-in-the-middle attacks (REQUIRED) 4. Compliance with RFC 3748, RFC 4017 and EAP keying (including EMSK and MSK generation) (REQUIRED) 5. Peer identity confidentiality (REQUIRED) 6. Crypto agility and ciphersuite negotiation (REQUIRED) 7. Session resumption (no password needed) (REQUIRED) 8. Fragmentation and reassembly (REQUIRED) 9. Cryptographic binding (REQUIRED if additional inner mechanisms are supported) 10. Password/PIN change (DESIRABLE) 11. Transport Channel binding data (REQUIRED) 12. Protected result indication (REQUIRED)=20 13. Support for certificate validation protocols (DESIRABLE) 14. Extension mechanism (in support of 10 - 12) (REQUIRED) _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu From emu-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 17 22:58:10 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IAzju-0004tY-CW; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 22:58:10 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IAzjt-0004tP-2L for emu@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 22:58:09 -0400 Received: from mail3.sea5.speakeasy.net ([69.17.117.5]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IAzjq-0008Qo-H5 for emu@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 22:58:08 -0400 Received: (qmail 22767 invoked from network); 18 Jul 2007 02:58:05 -0000 Received: from dsl017-049-110.sfo4.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO jm) ([69.17.49.110]) (envelope-sender ) by mail3.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 18 Jul 2007 02:58:05 -0000 Received: by jm (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 17 Jul 2007 19:57:55 -0700 Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 19:57:55 -0700 From: Jouni Malinen To: Hannes Tschofenig Subject: Re: [Emu] updated EAP-GPSK Message-ID: <20070718025755.GF5551@jm.kir.nu> References: <4692A8D9.2000608@gmx.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4692A8D9.2000608@gmx.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 41c17b4b16d1eedaa8395c26e9a251c4 Cc: emu@ietf.org X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emu-bounces@ietf.org On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 11:30:01PM +0200, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: > http://www.tschofenig.com/svn/draft-clancy-emu-eap-gpsk/draft-ietf-emu-eap-gpsk-06.txt > * fixed the description of flexibility in the introduction section > * added terms to the terminology section > * minor update to the key derivation section > * clarified the vendor-specific ciphersuite usage > * modified the length of the CSuite/Vendor and CSuite/Specifier format > * added reference to AES > * fixed minor bugs in the examples > * updated IANA Considerations section Looks good. Couple of editorial comments about missed edits for PData/Vendor,Specifier size change: 7.4. Protected Data "Type values are encoded as a 6-octet string and represented by a 4-octet vendor and 2-octet specifier field. The vendor field indicates the type as either standards-specified or vendor-specific. If these three octets are 0x00000000, then the value is standards-" s/these three octets/these four octets/ 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | PData/Vendor | ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ PData/Specifier | PData/Length | should be replaced with 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | PData/Vendor | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | PData/Specifier | PData/Length | "For PData/Vendor field 0x000000, the following PData/Specifier fields are defined:" s/0x000000/0x00000000/ 11. IANA Considerations "The following is the initial protected data PData/Specifier registry setup: o 0x000000 : Reserved o 0x000001 : Protected Results Indication The PData/Specifier field is 24 bits long and all other values are available via IANA registration." s/0x000000/0x0000/ s/0x000001/0x0001/ s/24 bits/16 bits/ -- Jouni Malinen PGP id EFC895FA _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu From emu-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jul 18 22:11:25 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IBLUD-0002Gy-Ih; Wed, 18 Jul 2007 22:11:25 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IBLUD-0002Gp-B0 for emu@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jul 2007 22:11:25 -0400 Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.192.83]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IBLUC-0006qN-Pj for emu@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jul 2007 22:11:25 -0400 Received: from [192.168.2.3] (c-68-34-5-83.hsd1.md.comcast.net[68.34.5.83]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with ESMTP id <20070719021123m1300ngq16e>; Thu, 19 Jul 2007 02:11:23 +0000 Message-ID: <469E8200.30503@cs.umd.edu> Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 22:11:28 +0100 From: Charles Clancy User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070604) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jouni Malinen Subject: Re: [Emu] updated EAP-GPSK References: <4692A8D9.2000608@gmx.net> <20070718025755.GF5551@jm.kir.nu> In-Reply-To: <20070718025755.GF5551@jm.kir.nu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 1.4 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 25620135586de10c627e3628c432b04a Cc: emu@ietf.org X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emu-bounces@ietf.org Nice catches. Also 2nd paragraph in section 5 needs to be updated with the proper OID field size. Jouni Malinen wrote: > On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 11:30:01PM +0200, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: > >> http://www.tschofenig.com/svn/draft-clancy-emu-eap-gpsk/draft-ietf-emu-eap-gpsk-06.txt > >> * fixed the description of flexibility in the introduction section >> * added terms to the terminology section >> * minor update to the key derivation section >> * clarified the vendor-specific ciphersuite usage >> * modified the length of the CSuite/Vendor and CSuite/Specifier format >> * added reference to AES >> * fixed minor bugs in the examples >> * updated IANA Considerations section > > Looks good. Couple of editorial comments about missed edits for > PData/Vendor,Specifier size change: > > > 7.4. Protected Data > > "Type values are encoded as a 6-octet string and represented by a > 4-octet vendor and 2-octet specifier field. The vendor field > indicates the type as either standards-specified or vendor-specific. > If these three octets are 0x00000000, then the value is standards-" > > s/these three octets/these four octets/ > > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | PData/Vendor | ... > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > PData/Specifier | PData/Length | > > should be replaced with > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | PData/Vendor | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | PData/Specifier | PData/Length | > > > > "For PData/Vendor field 0x000000, the following PData/Specifier fields > are defined:" > > s/0x000000/0x00000000/ > > > 11. IANA Considerations > > "The following is the initial protected data PData/Specifier registry > setup: > > o 0x000000 : Reserved > o 0x000001 : Protected Results Indication > > The PData/Specifier field is 24 bits long and all other values are > available via IANA registration." > > s/0x000000/0x0000/ > s/0x000001/0x0001/ > s/24 bits/16 bits/ > > -- t. charles clancy, ph.d. <> tcc@umd.edu <> www.cs.umd.edu/~clancy _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu From emu-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 24 12:05:26 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IDMt4-0000u9-Fi; Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:05:26 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IDMt2-0000sr-KQ for emu@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:05:24 -0400 Received: from dispatch.cs.umd.edu ([128.8.128.60]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IDMt1-0002ny-TQ for emu@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:05:24 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (dhcp-1230.ietf69.org [130.129.18.48]) (authenticated bits=0) by dispatch.cs.umd.edu (8.13.1/8.12.5) with ESMTP id l6OG5IVo030828 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:05:19 -0400 Message-ID: <46A62335.3060806@cs.umd.edu> Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:05:09 -0400 From: Charles Clancy User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5 (Windows/20070716) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: emu@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-CSD-MailScanner-Information: Please email staff@cs.umd.edu for more information X-CSD-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-CSD-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-4.399, required 5, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -1.80, BAYES_00 -2.60) X-CSD-MailScanner-From: clancy@cs.umd.edu X-Spam-Status: No X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 86f85b2f88b0d50615aed44a7f9e33c7 Subject: [Emu] review of PP-EAP X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emu-bounces@ietf.org Hao, Madjid, Hannes, Below is my review of PP-EAP. Being on the design team, perhaps my response is a little late, but better late than never. ------ Section 0: I still think the name/acronym needs work. Section 1: I don't think it's good to compare PP-EAP to the deficiencies of other similar EAP methods to justify why it was developed. I think the discussion of the design requirements in section 3 sufficiently justifies it. Section 2: (editorial) The line spacing has problems. There should be line feeds after the indented descriptions, before the next term. Section 3: I think many of the introduced protocols and terms need references, including OTP, LDAP, *CHAP, etc. Some of the documents also need references, including RFC 4017 and EAP key management. I think the AAA key management might need to be referenced as well (RFC 4962). Section 4.1: (editorial) Paragraph starting "The protocol consists of..." s/phases, during/phases. During/ Use of both "EAP server" and "PP-EAP" seems confusing -- stick with just one. Section 4.2: I think we need to discuss what changes to the protocol would warrant a new version number, with respect to the extensibility options already available. Section 4.3: What happens if the client cert is used and the client cert validation fails? Should we still check the password? What if the password is correct but client cert validation fails? Vice-versa? Is a client cert validation failure equivalent to simply not sending a client cert, or is it more catostrphic? Personally, I think we should make things simple and ignore client certs. I think we need more disucssion about when the phase-2 TLVs can be sent. Can they be sent immediately after (and in the same packet) as the ChangeCipherSpec, or do we need to wait until after both ChangeCipherSpec's? Can we add an ASCII-art protocol diagram or forward reference to the examples section? Section 4.4: The example "RESPONSE=test\0205" is confusing. Some may think "\0205" is unicode character 0x0205, or something. At least "\0" should be defined somewhere. I think we need to think further about different authentication scenarios with multiple password credential sets. It seems we could have any combination of: [username] [password] [username]\0[password] ... and any composition of the above in sequence for a variety of chained authentications. I think we may need to explicitly define the formatting, either by expanding upon the "REQUEST" / "RESPONSE" labels, or, for example, requiring a password to always begin with a "\0". So for example, imagine a common PAM authentication with multiple authentication modules. You might have something like: "REQUEST=Please enter your username and UNIX password" "RESPONSE=[username]\0[password1]" "REQUEST=Kerberos Password for [username]@[REALM]" "RESPONSE=\0[password2]" ... another problem is that the user GUI needs to know how many blanks to put on the screen (username and/or password) and whether they should be *'d out or not. I guess my overall point is that I don't think the REQUEST/RESPONSE semantics are detailed enough to cover every scenario. Section 4.4.1: (editorial) Section 4.4 should be 4.4.1 and 4.4.1 should be 4.4.2, and 4.4 should be an overall heading. Where did these error codes come from? They look copy/pasted from somewhere else. Do we need a reference? If not, why not start them from 1? I'm confused about the challenges in the error responses. Is this specific to MSCHAPv2? If so, we should have broader section discussing on MSCHAPv2. Could these be "REQUEST=*" values? They're also referred to as a "hexadecimal challenge value". At what point are these values formatted in hexadecimal? Just because something is binary data doesn't mean it's formatted in "hexadecimal". Section 4.5: I think we should forbid inner methods, and get rid of the crypto-bindings discussion. Discussion of how PEAPv2 and EAP-FAST derived keys is unnecessary. Section 4.10: More confusion about MSCHAP... was discussed in the error handling section... Section 4.11: (editorial) There are a variety of instances where the list formatting is missing line feeds, as in the terminology section. Section 4.11.1: Much of this seems to duplicate the EAP header. Is it necessary inside the tunnel as well? Why is there an optional message length field? Is this to optimize things with fragmentation? Why not just make it simple and always have it? ACK is a zero-length data field? Why not use that extra bit in the flags. Zero-length data field seems like it could lead to problems (what those are, I'm not sure). Section 4.11.2 / 4.11.5: The behavior of the NACK TLV seems underspecified. What should the server do if it receives a NACK for a TLV? Is that a catostrophic error? Should each TLV detail what should happen if a NACK is received in response? Section 4.11.3: (editorial) indenting issues Section 4.11.6: This statement needs help: "Vendor TLVs may be optional or mandatory." What are the implications of a mandatory vendor-specific TLV? Isn't the SMI space increasing to 4 bytes? I know we needed to recently make changes to EAP-GPSK. Section 4.11.7: Again, I think inner methods, and also crypto-bindings, should go away. Section 6.1: I think we need a paragraph on each describing it in more detail. Section 7: Do we need IANA space for the error codes? Are they extensible? Section 10: I think 3748 should be a normative reference. -- t. charles clancy, ph.d. <> tcc@umd.edu <> eng.umd.edu/~tcc adjunct professor, electrical engineering, university of maryland _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu