From nobody Tue Oct 10 23:38:56 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: reap@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: reap@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B94181331D9; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 23:38:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.101 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P9iX-InrXRlq; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 23:38:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ua0-x232.google.com (mail-ua0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 520A7133080; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 23:38:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ua0-x232.google.com with SMTP id b11so473736uae.12; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 23:38:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=yOJvXOs6/jeKmbB3jdFwwe2wdMnWKckePwCfrcDCIQk=; b=ugcR65mTEsrgr30I6emM9H4TXpTVoelkAKdpaTWObKIbgeYplbr5YtBhPgp7PvKGVa QdgJrBT7TulEK/BukvaeTFIM3QwykeFTN8Tg6+J0RtfklVhL7G3jZXMv45Co7IyWmQkH 1n6EG3tTO+aPr7537MTT+dFAMfwCcftxwtsxRFHidFYVjk8YV8DgdrAPjqWBVGvJQu3r 1TCmkFpBYjCmO2ZFFz1A7CJdDVGnBspIJkjoDCEwN8GuSQIulFAuWm2f+RBrLrYMigTy C+EJ9wnMu9IBHRDLosLzXHv2wR3Od0PXciD4k2ltMmpHuYp+jrKTbp1pfUS2THcinojN hp9A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=yOJvXOs6/jeKmbB3jdFwwe2wdMnWKckePwCfrcDCIQk=; b=kMm919bDrC3WL53GjvkpHuS2259uRDXAItDs/YjLvDFm82IojAeStMEKAvFQV55zpb wQNjWIb6oItG8fJ5L+aXVsARi3LvYyb4X2nW5fYwBEbX0sZZmtf+txZHPDzRPs/PKNkq zsUq+1G0X2+lLqdEJT4RDVZ8BnOlUOpmYs3ivBdWeyWqPoJCmsMC7gpGXLpVpXj5P+7K OFyoIsADU33U3awzzRn7TLzNlnT03v0KJ1goxVWs+9v33BYykqvpgtiPEYuJ0hIyUvP7 DEiSOuYsXHLW57B0kUHnGImz09k9wtNiHnRA3E6bdLImbd7eCRRKNBVGWlfddDx+xOeD p/tg== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaWHpj2S7Nax9BJTgWKNjbTUJv3MaI/s5VXOgJk5CTJY1oqTm1lu eTG8q7ufP+qrwZT5qe+pQXUgBc3lHL91JqVxZljPcg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QAvSdqQM4t7v3iDsj4YmuvvF/t4BPTUx/zOGw8vXOxBauY7V9hx1a4ealDGcJWHKgDfRUudpUStc892DNyxctM= X-Received: by 10.176.74.8 with SMTP id q8mr8465235uae.129.1507703929308; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 23:38:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.176.84.143 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 23:38:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Zhen Cao Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 14:38:48 +0800 Message-ID: To: reap@ietf.org, draft-aura-eap-noob@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Archived-At: Subject: [Reap] Review of EAP-NOOB X-BeenThere: reap@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "REAP \(RENEW\) EAP" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 06:38:55 -0000 Hi Mohit&Tuomas, Thank for the EAP-noob work, which is quite interesting. I read your draft again, however the OOB step still confuses me. In Section 3.2.2, Depending on the direction negotiated, the peer or the server outputs the OOB message containing the PeerId, the secret nonce Noob, and the cryptographic fingerprint Hoob, as defined in Section 3.3. This message is then delivered to the other party via a user-assisted OOB channel. The details of the ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ OOB channel are defined by the application. In the text above, the OOB message will be delivered to the other party via the *user-assisted* OOB channel. However, Figure.3 depicts the OOB between the peer and Server, which I believe is between User & Server. And this is not necessarily be over EAP. EAP Peer (Should be User?) EAP Server | | |=======OOB=========>| | (PeerId,Noob,Hoob) | | | My understanding is, the device displays the OOB message on its user interface, and the user will read this message and relays to the Server out of band. Because the server and the user has a pre-authenticated relationship, the server can regard the device as authenticated. The authentication delegation chain is: server trusts the user, and user has granted access to the IoT device, so the server will trust the IoT device (which has set a conversation with the Initial Exchange). This is essentially how you can bootstrapping the authentication between two parties without any preconfigured credentials. Correct me if I did not get it right. Many thanks, Zhen From nobody Thu Oct 26 06:03:22 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: reap@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: reap@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5297E13F588; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 06:03:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.22 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ET-kS_4g7D3v; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 06:03:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sesbmg23.ericsson.net (sesbmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.37]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5710A13F58C; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 06:03:13 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-1b7d19c000000c94-83-59f1dd0fd0c1 Received: from ESESSHC016.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.66]) by sesbmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 8E.E3.03220.F0DD1F95; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 15:03:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from nomadiclab.fi.eu.ericsson.se (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.68) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.352.0; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 15:02:49 +0200 Received: from nomadiclab.fi.eu.ericsson.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nomadiclab.fi.eu.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E9CB4EDA2; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 16:04:50 +0300 (EEST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nomadiclab.fi.eu.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A5724E689; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 16:04:50 +0300 (EEST) To: "saag@ietf.org" , From: Mohit Sethi Message-ID: <3dbe94b9-4b2d-1479-8433-8b040cb1cfba@ericsson.com> Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 16:02:48 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrBLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7ky7/3Y+RBveey1mcW3mcxWJKfyeT A5PHkiU/mQIYo7hsUlJzMstSi/TtErgy7sxrZC+4z16xeo1TA+MGti5GTg4JAROJCxv2s3cx cnEICRxhlDh7YCeUs4NRov/HRiYIZxOjxPpNKxkhnIWMEj97pwL1c3CIAPW/WJMIMopNQE+i 89xxZhBbWMBSYsfK+WA2r4C9xMRpTawgNouAqsS3iXvAVosKREg8b37PClEjKHFy5hMWEJtZ wEJi5vzzjBC2vMT2t3OYIWxxiVtP5jNBnK0mcfXcJrC4kIC6xNaOA4wTGAVnIRk1C8moWUhG zUIyagEjyypG0eLU4qTcdCNjvdSizOTi4vw8vbzUkk2MwPA9uOW36g7Gy28cDzEKcDAq8fDa n/8YKcSaWFZcmXuIUYKDWUmE1+oaUIg3JbGyKrUoP76oNCe1+BCjNAeLkjiv474LEUIC6Ykl qdmpqQWpRTBZJg5OqQbGAm+WrB0bOhxn10tIeEgKqnyQj10SZVQ0Z8+GgzZ/dLifHrkzMSjr jHXLI1XLNoP3nU6rZB2Wuj/aX+G+Njd8+86Kh+lJJ/q43z91jPptr/DXMHduKsvWLCP1xJM9 /hFpuit6gxRnzXl7YfamTzp35t7dZPh9k3uPaVru0chr4dtEpiYUP7ysxFKckWioxVxUnAgA e6DILFsCAAA= Archived-At: Subject: [Reap] PSA: New list for discussing EAP related methods X-BeenThere: reap@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "REAP \(RENEW\) EAP" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 13:03:15 -0000 Dear all, We have started a mailing list for discussing new EAP related work that currently has no obvious home. The mailing list is called REAP (Renew EAP) reap@ietf.org and you can subscribe here: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/reap Recently several new EAP methods have been proposed. These include for example: EAP-TLS 1.3: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mattsson-eap-tls13-00 EAP-NOOB: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aura-eap-noob-02 EAP-SASL: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vanrein-eap-sasl-00 The list serves as a venue for discussion of these and other EAP related drafts that will be submitted in the near future. As courtesy, we will post any new draft to SAAG, but we plan to continue the discussion only on the REAP mailing list. We have also asked for a short presentation slot during SECDISPATCH at IETF 100 in Singapore. Comments, early feedback, and discussion on existing or new work is more than welcome. --Mohit From nobody Thu Oct 26 08:52:20 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: reap@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: reap@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 354AD13F56B; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 08:52:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.438 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.438 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_OBFUSCATE_05_10=0.26, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UZE3N-7BYtsD; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 08:52:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vk0-x22e.google.com (mail-vk0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A25013F551; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 08:52:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vk0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id t184so2432535vka.6; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 08:52:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=pNtIUAui3gGKuj7B0WykiVtgNLObTea6aex25gyN+Hg=; b=bMLEiSmOAxe4gC3btWCDQODHqyL2qWXHVw9r6pR9kAjtbFXK+MR100B4AYkeBT/6y6 wbP7EOet7MqhkAis0LO3An1yx0Z5VFI4resUXmQlHwPS9newhuqbGUqnuKwsNANmXgFT XNv17fr/Xe9hOW59vjm5Rb9JDil46255V9fgAxzijjuZROLJqqxI76z+zZ4M8Yl1DPmh Wz4lsIEaaiuKZR4CNYDEAwlWEud+IXBnbNx93mrdgiPINaUVp66Yt5PtZek0ZV25tz+Y caCCMv2aDSWo2ZkmaUesHIfkTMUIEPLRhATYpCkHQcgZf0g32NVJwS1pz0BwZO1u2ErK aqLw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=pNtIUAui3gGKuj7B0WykiVtgNLObTea6aex25gyN+Hg=; b=QqiDQez5AQbMjqtmPCkWUAAEGMmtXIjHJ5D6XGcw+6eiWnoahotGrYsdSA0n3dEyjV 76DpgbWZpOVqewRuVcow41yRd3yh54a5LdIITCSFvDUMpzeUD8Vq2UHVFFvPkULX0UxI Si1SMHzctk70subJjXFqBLYHqa/FiqYb8MTFv2/9u6rOixZjdRsRk/+DuDaYmOHpsp5m T+4oXkTcrZJJkbyYqipXCnWxZQw/1MClE/ZGbSbCWz6YBxabOTKVXNtQMeTakP1rG/3o 1YM9GilueMaHz2Ac97Gy1vGD4gDG2z7GwIQRXtEZ78/N+qYa8S1A95Qb3Zea4jklWLAA vY9g== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaVbhfVDQOTLwtXb7TIrUJOO3ag+uQOmHtTPaU+qXFknqnyon1Lu ILImHKCjS7xYZOlBy3nOuO8odVPaDu5lgkwDeN71yQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+ReN6iujY0r23bTkgeiOz8V/fjpET8moe3Putesa2G1sMc5FC1IeWnPNGBrY4na7+qZzRtaQ3qjOPGbc+EmTNI= X-Received: by 10.31.63.144 with SMTP id m138mr3933349vka.5.1509033135305; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 08:52:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.159.38.130 with HTTP; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 08:51:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <3dbe94b9-4b2d-1479-8433-8b040cb1cfba@ericsson.com> References: <3dbe94b9-4b2d-1479-8433-8b040cb1cfba@ericsson.com> From: Bernard Aboba Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 08:51:54 -0700 Message-ID: To: Mohit Sethi Cc: "saag@ietf.org" , reap@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114dbff4fbfaf3055c752792" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Reap] [saag] PSA: New list for discussing EAP related methods X-BeenThere: reap@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "REAP \(RENEW\) EAP" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 15:52:19 -0000 --001a114dbff4fbfaf3055c752792 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" There are existing functioning IETF mailing lists relating to EAP. Why are you starting yet another one? >From what I can tell, the EAP-TLS 1.3 draft is merely a copy of RFC 5216 (with no acknowledgement to the original authors) stating that EAP-TLS implementations must support TLS 1.3. This is ridiculous because there are 1+ Billion existing implementations out there that On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 6:02 AM, Mohit Sethi wrote: > Dear all, > > We have started a mailing list for discussing new EAP related work that > currently has no obvious home. The mailing list is called REAP (Renew EAP) > reap@ietf.org and you can subscribe here: > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/reap > > Recently several new EAP methods have been proposed. These include for > example: > > EAP-TLS 1.3: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mattsson-eap-tls13-00 > > EAP-NOOB: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aura-eap-noob-02 > > EAP-SASL: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vanrein-eap-sasl-00 > > The list serves as a venue for discussion of these and other EAP related > drafts that will be submitted in the near future. As courtesy, we will post > any new draft to SAAG, but we plan to continue the discussion only on the > REAP mailing list. We have also asked for a short presentation slot during > SECDISPATCH at IETF 100 in Singapore. > > Comments, early feedback, and discussion on existing or new work is more > than welcome. > > --Mohit > > _______________________________________________ > saag mailing list > saag@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag > --001a114dbff4fbfaf3055c752792 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
There are existing functioning IETF mailing lists relating= to EAP.=C2=A0

Why are you starting yet another one?=C2= =A0

From what I can tell, the EAP-TLS 1.3 draft is= merely a copy of RFC 5216 (with no acknowledgement to the original authors= ) stating that EAP-TLS implementations must support TLS 1.3.=C2=A0

This is ridiculous because there are 1+ Billion existing i= mplementations out there that=C2=A0


On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 6:02 A= M, Mohit Sethi <mohit.m.sethi@ericsson.com> wrote:<= br>
Dear all,

We have started a mailing list for discussing new EAP related work that cur= rently has no obvious home. The mailing list is called REAP (Renew EAP) reap@ietf.org and you c= an subscribe here:
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/reap

Recently several new EAP methods have been proposed. These include for exam= ple:

EAP-TLS 1.3: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mattsson-eap-tls13-00

EAP-NOOB: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-a= ura-eap-noob-02

EAP-SASL: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draf= t-vanrein-eap-sasl-00

The list serves as a venue for discussion of these and other EAP related dr= afts that will be submitted in the near future. As courtesy, we will post a= ny new draft to SAAG, but we plan to continue the discussion only on the RE= AP mailing list. We have also asked for a short presentation slot during SE= CDISPATCH at IETF 100 in Singapore.

Comments, early feedback, and discussion on existing or new work is more th= an welcome.

--Mohit

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

--001a114dbff4fbfaf3055c752792-- From nobody Thu Oct 26 10:16:37 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: reap@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: reap@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80CC013F3B8; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 10:16:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.219 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yZc1cVyqkwWC; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 10:16:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sessmg23.ericsson.net (sessmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.45]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1E12139059; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 10:16:29 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-bf5ff7000000268d-55-59f2186b35f5 Received: from ESESSHC022.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.84]) by sessmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id B5.7A.09869.B6812F95; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 19:16:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from nomadiclab.fi.eu.ericsson.se (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.86) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.352.0; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 19:16:27 +0200 Received: from nomadiclab.fi.eu.ericsson.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nomadiclab.fi.eu.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 005744EDA2; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 20:18:28 +0300 (EEST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nomadiclab.fi.eu.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1901D4E689; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 20:18:27 +0300 (EEST) To: Bernard Aboba , Mohit Sethi CC: , "saag@ietf.org" References: <3dbe94b9-4b2d-1479-8433-8b040cb1cfba@ericsson.com> From: Mohit Sethi Message-ID: <6b3dcad6-f00c-1fb9-4df6-19f3dc744371@ericsson.com> Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 20:16:25 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------058350CA33B59DC857667733" Content-Language: en-US X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprAIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2J7iG6OxKdIg6lvWC027PvPbHFu5XEW iyn9nUwOzB47Z91l91iy5CdTAFMUl01Kak5mWWqRvl0CV8aBLXPZCma4VUzZspq9gfGjSRcj J4eEgInE+q5PLF2MXBxCAkcYJY7t/8gM4exglFi1YiMTSJWQwCZGiUdPuSESCxkl5q2fAZYQ FnCReP+xnR3EFhEIl9h65AUjiM0MNLbp0y12iIY2Rokth2eCFbEJ6El0njvODGLzCthLLP5x H2wQi4CqxOUTS8DiogIREs+b37NC1AhKnJz5hAXE5hQIlDj/pgtqQZjE8i+9ULa4xK0n85kg /lGTuHpuEzPE1eoSWzsOME5gFJ6FZNQsJO2zkLRD2BYSM+efh4rLS2x/O4cZwtaQaJ0zlx0m 3rx1NvMCRvZVjKLFqcXFuelGxnqpRZnJxcX5eXp5qSWbGIHxdHDLb90djKtfOx5iFOBgVOLh vcr5KVKINbGsuDL3EKMEB7OSCG+UMFCINyWxsiq1KD++qDQntfgQozQHi5I4r8O+CxFCAumJ JanZqakFqUUwWSYOTqkGRq7S/Wp+c+2fbXozebv+Up11vz/lK+w7tfhhXLLf3rLbjuyV0lpp +9/ukfp/3cDcfVVq7oSP9rdO7mq7LJQi33hHOrR8etquyBNzuBc6Pa279YNbzGpn77KFRt/P JcTm2h3TjDFpnmplZV59OdZOn6nHK3i+kvKCHO16OcfJIlsaeqbvXNw7SYmlOCPRUIu5qDgR AN+mNN+jAgAA Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Reap] [saag] PSA: New list for discussing EAP related methods X-BeenThere: reap@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "REAP \(RENEW\) EAP" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 17:16:32 -0000 --------------058350CA33B59DC857667733 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Bernard, The EAP-TLS 1.3 document is a very rough drafty version that was submitted before the cut-off for the last IETF. As you rightly point out, it has the skeleton and a lot of material from RFC5216, and still many important details are missing. The purpose of this list is to exactly receive these kind of comments. Should RFC5216 be updated or obsoleted by this draft. And it would be great if we can have your contributions to the document. We will definitely add an acknowledgement section and contact the authors of RFC5216 to see if they can contribute and comment. We plan to have more EAP related contributions in the near future. We discussed this with the Security ADs and thought that a separate list would be appropriate to get feedback/criticism and contributions from the folks interested. --Mohit On 10/26/2017 06:51 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote: > There are existing functioning IETF mailing lists relating to EAP. > > Why are you starting yet another one? > > From what I can tell, the EAP-TLS 1.3 draft is merely a copy of RFC > 5216 (with no acknowledgement to the original authors) stating that > EAP-TLS implementations must support TLS 1.3. > > This is ridiculous because there are 1+ Billion existing > implementations out there that > > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 6:02 AM, Mohit Sethi > > wrote: > > Dear all, > > We have started a mailing list for discussing new EAP related work > that currently has no obvious home. The mailing list is called > REAP (Renew EAP) reap@ietf.org and you can > subscribe here: > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/reap > > > Recently several new EAP methods have been proposed. These include > for example: > > EAP-TLS 1.3: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mattsson-eap-tls13-00 > > > EAP-NOOB: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aura-eap-noob-02 > > > EAP-SASL: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vanrein-eap-sasl-00 > > > The list serves as a venue for discussion of these and other EAP > related drafts that will be submitted in the near future. As > courtesy, we will post any new draft to SAAG, but we plan to > continue the discussion only on the REAP mailing list. We have > also asked for a short presentation slot during SECDISPATCH at > IETF 100 in Singapore. > > Comments, early feedback, and discussion on existing or new work > is more than welcome. > > --Mohit > > _______________________________________________ > saag mailing list > saag@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > saag mailing list > saag@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag --------------058350CA33B59DC857667733 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hi Bernard,

The EAP-TLS 1.3 document is a very rough drafty version that was submitted before the cut-off for the last IETF. As you rightly point out, it has the skeleton and a lot of material from RFC5216, and still many important details are missing.

The purpose of this list is to exactly receive these kind of comments. Should RFC5216 be updated or obsoleted by this draft. And it would be great if we can have your contributions to the document. We will definitely add an acknowledgement section and contact the authors of RFC5216 to see if they can contribute and comment. We plan to have more EAP related contributions in the near future. We discussed this with the Security ADs and thought that a separate list would be appropriate to get feedback/criticism and contributions from the folks interested.

--Mohit


On 10/26/2017 06:51 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
There are existing functioning IETF mailing lists relating to EAP. 

Why are you starting yet another one? 

From what I can tell, the EAP-TLS 1.3 draft is merely a copy of RFC 5216 (with no acknowledgement to the original authors) stating that EAP-TLS implementations must support TLS 1.3. 

This is ridiculous because there are 1+ Billion existing implementations out there that 


On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 6:02 AM, Mohit Sethi <mohit.m.sethi@ericsson.com> wrote:
Dear all,

We have started a mailing list for discussing new EAP related work that currently has no obvious home. The mailing list is called REAP (Renew EAP) reap@ietf.org and you can subscribe here:
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/reap

Recently several new EAP methods have been proposed. These include for example:

EAP-TLS 1.3: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mattsson-eap-tls13-00

EAP-NOOB: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aura-eap-noob-02

EAP-SASL: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vanrein-eap-sasl-00

The list serves as a venue for discussion of these and other EAP related drafts that will be submitted in the near future. As courtesy, we will post any new draft to SAAG, but we plan to continue the discussion only on the REAP mailing list. We have also asked for a short presentation slot during SECDISPATCH at IETF 100 in Singapore.

Comments, early feedback, and discussion on existing or new work is more than welcome.

--Mohit

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



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

--------------058350CA33B59DC857667733-- From nobody Thu Oct 26 10:55:37 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: reap@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: reap@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F39913F5D2; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 10:55:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.698 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nROSNQDHf1Ck; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 10:55:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wm0-x234.google.com (mail-wm0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37D0A13F5D0; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 10:55:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm0-x234.google.com with SMTP id t139so9927863wmt.1; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 10:55:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=1K8iPlcxL+A//uQl0MNTmipU+zQvaXDNDgCIXG0R0KA=; b=RjEDjGZwpOLJTxNd8ZCbGa+ZDrv4M5LDdwmvSYPTcoKTaucl/sMxkmkJR5T3dbc64b 3ft7jZpamdZLHsxcWJmdqhINMVyEfTjpBF7xLn/pdDrFmyyOqHEqtSUuwYw/aCK9/wEv WNGCBBBeq+R49mPn3yoOv0mQO5ntTka2OxtAGGOo1arQwSZPHFdXYfX7ANH/ln2S+8Cy pDS9E5uend7+xcSyrVQF5GNWZGBOouHpet5WeB+GHsH/BO47F3+hXBAU6H17GtFATylj Tv1nhA2THfq5o5MV9/8Takyku96oRFSN03rA7NyO+jd4f+afNpwOxgEE0HHNgmUWYZVj rCOw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=1K8iPlcxL+A//uQl0MNTmipU+zQvaXDNDgCIXG0R0KA=; b=nFD7KPIFkfsBshOKjzeyZ8oNIHTS3r4wY7Jy0L+sjij4f3NMLz4bBSZAb/OJ97SHSW GeNxNw5pi/1lbYJwNaV0IcAoVp+QKDVY9LcfcTD4IfifsbP2xS/s3gJ7++VYsih+b46+ wzWH8OiPxPYhDpWKzIVJXyDjGVme2+eDM8HyFoLVg0Q5740t1J6lPP8Dwo1oBYreSY7J OpEZ+UIW0TLomkur2DZBfZY6czC03t83z7Y2OTOg1zIQ2iYjcqBFglCLaTXEl9Rc8OlJ oqTz4ldMo5xlkfq65iXPuhYdD4ossi5v5HiYRsfQQFCN/alj4mW6Hh+J0EOL6poA3Q43 BfyA== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaVsxFAyD7Z3kJKJxzdApwLG57F+svgj9lhJZBU013mJix6wqcbZ aQW0NhQBwermkNnusSEbcpQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+QqV+pqMRqTyBIRCn3qMF/Z/7OvJEy6f3MGB1Lb+B60wCafbd9KAcIniuRbUrYEgt6ahVnC1g== X-Received: by 10.28.72.8 with SMTP id v8mr2045743wma.38.1509040527766; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 10:55:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.18] ([46.120.57.147]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y187sm1093641wmy.13.2017.10.26.10.55.26 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 26 Oct 2017 10:55:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Yoav Nir Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_127CC89A-36EE-4E42-8003-FEC308D701E1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.0 \(3445.1.7\)) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 20:55:24 +0300 In-Reply-To: Cc: Mohit Sethi , reap@ietf.org, Security Area Advisory Group To: Bernard Aboba References: <3dbe94b9-4b2d-1479-8433-8b040cb1cfba@ericsson.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.1.7) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Reap] [saag] PSA: New list for discussing EAP related methods X-BeenThere: reap@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "REAP \(RENEW\) EAP" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 17:55:31 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_127CC89A-36EE-4E42-8003-FEC308D701E1 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E6015445-0E03-4A9A-9B2B-FC004162D1BA" --Apple-Mail=_E6015445-0E03-4A9A-9B2B-FC004162D1BA Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > On 26 Oct 2017, at 18:51, Bernard Aboba = wrote: >=20 > There are existing functioning IETF mailing lists relating to EAP. >=20 > Why are you starting yet another one? +1 The EMU mailing list seems appropriate. Yoav https://tools.ietf.org/wg/emu/ https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/emu/current/maillist.html = --Apple-Mail=_E6015445-0E03-4A9A-9B2B-FC004162D1BA Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

On 26 Oct 2017, at 18:51, Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> wrote:

There are existing functioning IETF mailing lists relating to = EAP. 

Why are = you starting yet another = one? 

+1

The EMU mailing list seems appropriate.

Yoav

https://tools.ietf.org/wg/emu/
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/emu/current/maillist.html=

= --Apple-Mail=_E6015445-0E03-4A9A-9B2B-FC004162D1BA-- --Apple-Mail=_127CC89A-36EE-4E42-8003-FEC308D701E1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEE9OWnAqT2UIzvSbaAuEkLFQpYzJkFAlnyIYwACgkQuEkLFQpY zJnZ9wf8CRVZlfrmtkxh5W18fhtw/hRvRdtnK9SZB3MJGWT59YGjyemW0g51RD0P 698wAUVumUmeOxTPkgKTEip7iNqxU0sFmtVjgunTCRYg5ldlc7NrH+ASdfue9Aug YZC0jfJDwRwWJFOFH4ImB/CxAnLr7JE8xSZWsvB3lnVH9PDFc4kYPj7EjRo11d+D 7fQa9hK6cp0rrMGVctlN1yr7RuQDjQaQnoQ+6D3VuAHYzk5daxNVM1OSTqulDI+T VVlm/6PDC/FnyflNYEZc0VSLmGRu0CIXmrkbKF5eIhRUb1E9GkXBuTBgHRttW1DB wF17CZ763/Ff7BpGG1my/5q9/yyNWA== =3pNP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_127CC89A-36EE-4E42-8003-FEC308D701E1-- From davidm@circularnetworks.com Thu Oct 26 07:45:20 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: reap@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: reap@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93549138BD6; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 07:45:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 971zu-kBQELv; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 07:45:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from caracal.maple.relay.mailchannels.net (caracal.maple.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.214.30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BDFB138A4C; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 07:45:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender-Id: fastwebhost|x-authuser|davidm@circularnetworks.com Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 519DD12A5FD; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 14:45:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from svr166.edns1.com (unknown [100.96.126.244]) (Authenticated sender: fastwebhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 2CBEC12A54B; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 14:45:04 +0000 (UTC) X-Sender-Id: fastwebhost|x-authuser|davidm@circularnetworks.com Received: from svr166.edns1.com (svr166.edns1.com [172.20.112.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:2500 (trex/5.9.14); Thu, 26 Oct 2017 14:45:12 +0000 X-MC-Relay: Neutral X-MailChannels-SenderId: fastwebhost|x-authuser|davidm@circularnetworks.com X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: fastwebhost X-Fearful-Daffy: 43b14458639f7fc4_1509029104485_3582956654 X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1509029104485:2927937819 X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1509029104484 Received: from c-24-147-100-255.hsd1.ma.comcast.net ([24.147.100.255]:50979 helo=[IPv6:::ffff:192.168.2.34]) by svr166.edns1.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1e7jP4-0005ga-A3; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 07:45:02 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mohit Sethi , "saag@ietf.org" , "reap@ietf.org" From: David Mitton Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 10:45:02 -0400 Importance: normal X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <3dbe94b9-4b2d-1479-8433-8b040cb1cfba@ericsson.com> References: <3dbe94b9-4b2d-1479-8433-8b040cb1cfba@ericsson.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_2DC240DB-E97A-42DE-AE72-1D9D98563392_" X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 171026-0, 10/26/2017), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-AuthUser: davidm@circularnetworks.com Message-Id: <20171026144512.519DD12A5FD@relay.mailchannels.net> Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 11:21:08 -0700 Subject: Re: [Reap] [saag] PSA: New list for discussing EAP related methods X-BeenThere: reap@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "REAP \(RENEW\) EAP" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:15:43 -0000 --_2DC240DB-E97A-42DE-AE72-1D9D98563392_ Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" I=E2=80=99m sorry, it=E2=80=99s been a while since I paid attention. So EMU has been closed, and you didn=E2=80=99t want to recycle the acronym?= It might be useful to review the progress of the methods that came out of E= MU. Dave. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Mohit Sethi Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 9:04 AM To: saag@ietf.org; reap@ietf.org Subject: [saag] PSA: New list for discussing EAP related methods Dear all, We have started a mailing list for discussing new EAP related work that currently has no obvious home. The mailing list is called REAP (Renew EAP) reap@ietf.org and you can subscribe here: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/reap Recently several new EAP methods have been proposed. These include for example: EAP-TLS 1.3: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mattsson-eap-tls13-00 EAP-NOOB: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aura-eap-noob-02 EAP-SASL: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vanrein-eap-sasl-00 The list serves as a venue for discussion of these and other EAP related drafts that will be submitted in the near future. As courtesy, we will post any new draft to SAAG, but we plan to continue the discussion only on the REAP mailing list. We have also asked for a short presentation slot during SECDISPATCH at IETF 100 in Singapore. Comments, early feedback, and discussion on existing or new work is more than welcome. --Mohit _______________________________________________ saag mailing list saag@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus --_2DC240DB-E97A-42DE-AE72-1D9D98563392_ Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"

I=E2=80=99m sorry, it=E2=80=99s been= a while since I paid attention.

So EMU has been cl= osed, and you didn=E2=80=99t want to recycle the acronym?

It might be useful to review the progress of the methods that came o= ut of EMU.

 

Dave.

 

<= o:p> 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: Mohit Sethi
Sent: Thursday, O= ctober 26, 2017 9:04 AM
To: saag= @ietf.org; reap@ietf.org
Sub= ject: [saag] PSA: New list for discussing EAP related methods

=

 

Dear all,

 

We have sta= rted a mailing list for discussing new EAP related work that

currently has no obvious home. The mailing list is called REAP= (Renew

EAP) reap@ietf.org and you can subscribe h= ere:

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/reap

=

 

Recently sev= eral new EAP methods have been proposed. These include for

example:

 

EAP-TLS 1.3: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mattsson-eap-tls13-= 00

 

EAP-NO= OB: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aura-eap-noob-02

 

EAP-SASL: https://tools.ietf.= org/html/draft-vanrein-eap-sasl-00

 

The list serves as a venue for discussion of thes= e and other EAP related

drafts that will be submit= ted in the near future. As courtesy, we will

post = any new draft to SAAG, but we plan to continue the discussion only

on the REAP mailing list. We have also asked for a short p= resentation

slot during SECDISPATCH at IETF 100 in= Singapore.

 

Comments, early feedback, and discussion on existing or new work is more=

than welcome.

 =

--Mohit

 <= /o:p>

_____________________________________________= __

saag mailing list

saag@i= etf.org

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag<= /p>

 


3D"" Virus-= free. www.avast.com
--_2DC240DB-E97A-42DE-AE72-1D9D98563392_-- From nobody Thu Oct 26 11:43:49 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: reap@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: reap@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BEC913942C; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 11:43:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ixgLWC-pgnxv; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 11:43:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.networkradius.com (mail.networkradius.com [62.210.147.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3783139553; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 11:43:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.9] (198-84-205-59.cpe.teksavvy.com [198.84.205.59]) by mail.networkradius.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 19B0A506; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:43:44 +0000 (UTC) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 From: Alan DeKok X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <20171026144512.519DD12A5FD@relay.mailchannels.net> Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 14:43:43 -0400 Cc: Mohit Sethi , "saag@ietf.org" , "reap@ietf.org" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <0D4AC5B7-4F4E-4E28-B6AC-205824386D10@deployingradius.com> References: <3dbe94b9-4b2d-1479-8433-8b040cb1cfba@ericsson.com> <20171026144512.519DD12A5FD@relay.mailchannels.net> To: David Mitton X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Reap] [saag] PSA: New list for discussing EAP related methods X-BeenThere: reap@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "REAP \(RENEW\) EAP" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:43:48 -0000 > On Oct 26, 2017, at 10:45 AM, David Mitton = wrote: >=20 > I=E2=80=99m sorry, it=E2=80=99s been a while since I paid attention. > So EMU has been closed, and you didn=E2=80=99t want to recycle the = acronym? > It might be useful to review the progress of the methods that came out = of EMU. The main output of EMU was TEAP. While it may be implemented = somewhere, I'm now aware of it's existence in any popular OS, or any = wide-spread use of it. Alan DeKok. From nobody Thu Oct 26 11:54:26 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: reap@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: reap@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A29713F442; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 11:54:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iqcuwA1g0TPf; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 11:54:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pg0-x229.google.com (mail-pg0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6AA1913942C; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 11:54:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg0-x229.google.com with SMTP id a192so3391733pge.9; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 11:54:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=13mn0BAYaGa/4VJjztteIkV69s2qxIIZtitzpGcDEuY=; b=CJjj7Yj8wTN7qRe/nV8AV7LYyyuIGOHVVd4zBdekavMfC0Zgf8ZLB+LEFKIE+X6+CC FRmxFNjt2W1C7dkrsueAF3Wx2OJJ4npgn4+t3CNuI7kqOUcfD/8Dim/EfUxtEO2KRxpr MNnRe+WgERJSzzsQ36p5JVtDYrS8Hgw1QdHQNY8LjBElASho3AYw/Qhpofmj9wvDbmpF fjpLVfu8tg5niD5oiaScrBcrAywp30GnMOdSMlJsi7X3onI9UTTii6LX+8HcP4dwY1kn GjiacYoFoE+z3Zb389SYhBQJEi2TMRhW6FgFFuzyhKGSdcr2vLHgpHwxZBVKvZPOV383 jzBA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=13mn0BAYaGa/4VJjztteIkV69s2qxIIZtitzpGcDEuY=; b=Vaj0PS0pSpSQdzucbqiV92Ge5ah3WPKxlOEFMCEmOi3Y5pETUcGAsNORwunIEO1rzX XT/UkiSj/yzBVjrAihiLfNIxmZ8FReMDy+EqjXslsvMXM3zn2BjFqI8YZiv5BPOCEHas UN344OVL4bk3McvIc56v7xQbAlkBQzg/uzfAz+elX8USQPPBSEbTH+MBftdbk5cVdHnv 57tspwGAhSO96w63h8A2Djh592lM6BKV4bY9UCx4brM/hqKxv3VBm+DmZGrUW8V2nEqD P+1PDSPPi1Qvv9fli7xUKZySouDETZVWnNvp17FsKSxm3JqfHe1ZiwnUxjPsjN5ja1PC wRyQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaUOCHjalp/IrD/2KHl/SrjLuEB0DH+FLYuxNjIBLyHGwmgSFTox h3iqZVwJcn0J9uSMBrm1otTPcwlx8bTNweuOnIU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+Sc7EizZrEDR6ttng7dEkdx2CFPlVikI8Svdo2OzKjBbKY3EUVz4x2a7XKEOlnDqwle42xiPysBOoMCAAHNXnc= X-Received: by 10.98.214.76 with SMTP id r73mr6198747pfg.261.1509044056806; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 11:54:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.186.194 with HTTP; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 11:53:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <6b3dcad6-f00c-1fb9-4df6-19f3dc744371@ericsson.com> References: <3dbe94b9-4b2d-1479-8433-8b040cb1cfba@ericsson.com> <6b3dcad6-f00c-1fb9-4df6-19f3dc744371@ericsson.com> From: Kathleen Moriarty Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 14:53:36 -0400 Message-ID: To: Mohit Sethi Cc: Bernard Aboba , reap@ietf.org, "saag@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Reap] [saag] PSA: New list for discussing EAP related methods X-BeenThere: reap@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "REAP \(RENEW\) EAP" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:54:20 -0000 On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Mohit Sethi wrote: > Hi Bernard, > > The EAP-TLS 1.3 document is a very rough drafty version that was submitted > before the cut-off for the last IETF. As you rightly point out, it has the > skeleton and a lot of material from RFC5216, and still many important > details are missing. > > The purpose of this list is to exactly receive these kind of comments. > Should RFC5216 be updated or obsoleted by this draft. And it would be great > if we can have your contributions to the document. We will definitely add an > acknowledgement section and contact the authors of RFC5216 to see if they > can contribute and comment. We plan to have more EAP related contributions > in the near future. We discussed this with the Security ADs and thought that > a separate list would be appropriate to get feedback/criticism and > contributions from the folks interested. I'm sorry, I didn't realize that a revision of 5216 was involved and that the authors were not notified at the onset as is normal practice in case they want to continue as authors. Thank you for spotting this issue Bernard. Is there an existing list that should be used? Is there adequate overlap in objectives and personnel? Thank you, Kathleen > > --Mohit > > > On 10/26/2017 06:51 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote: > > There are existing functioning IETF mailing lists relating to EAP. > > Why are you starting yet another one? > > From what I can tell, the EAP-TLS 1.3 draft is merely a copy of RFC 5216 > (with no acknowledgement to the original authors) stating that EAP-TLS > implementations must support TLS 1.3. > > This is ridiculous because there are 1+ Billion existing implementations out > there that > > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 6:02 AM, Mohit Sethi > wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> We have started a mailing list for discussing new EAP related work that >> currently has no obvious home. The mailing list is called REAP (Renew EAP) >> reap@ietf.org and you can subscribe here: >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/reap >> >> Recently several new EAP methods have been proposed. These include for >> example: >> >> EAP-TLS 1.3: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mattsson-eap-tls13-00 >> >> EAP-NOOB: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aura-eap-noob-02 >> >> EAP-SASL: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vanrein-eap-sasl-00 >> >> The list serves as a venue for discussion of these and other EAP related >> drafts that will be submitted in the near future. As courtesy, we will post >> any new draft to SAAG, but we plan to continue the discussion only on the >> REAP mailing list. We have also asked for a short presentation slot during >> SECDISPATCH at IETF 100 in Singapore. >> >> Comments, early feedback, and discussion on existing or new work is more >> than welcome. >> >> --Mohit >> >> _______________________________________________ >> saag mailing list >> saag@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag > > > > > _______________________________________________ > saag mailing list > saag@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag > > > > _______________________________________________ > saag mailing list > saag@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag > -- Best regards, Kathleen From nobody Thu Oct 26 12:51:38 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: reap@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: reap@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D80A513899A; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:51:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.219 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bH-NskncIu2i; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:51:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sesbmg23.ericsson.net (sesbmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.37]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C81E713836A; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:51:34 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-debff70000000c94-61-59f23cc42b8a Received: from ESESSHC013.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.57]) by sesbmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 87.54.03220.4CC32F95; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 21:51:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from nomadiclab.fi.eu.ericsson.se (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.352.0; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 21:51:32 +0200 Received: from nomadiclab.fi.eu.ericsson.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nomadiclab.fi.eu.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54AC44EDA2; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 22:53:34 +0300 (EEST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nomadiclab.fi.eu.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACDE14E689; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 22:53:33 +0300 (EEST) To: Yoav Nir , Bernard Aboba CC: , Mohit Sethi , Security Area Advisory Group References: <3dbe94b9-4b2d-1479-8433-8b040cb1cfba@ericsson.com> From: Mohit Sethi Message-ID: <4c6c9bc8-6056-c03d-a0f6-f1f32fabef39@ericsson.com> Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 22:51:31 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------EC2C00B0E247F0D0B57097A4" Content-Language: en-US X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprCIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7pe5Rm0+RBg8ncVts2Pef2eLcyuMs FlP6O5kslh77wOTA4rFz1l12jyVLfjIFMEVx2aSk5mSWpRbp2yVwZSy9PZW54JpKxfdDh9gb GI/IdDFyckgImEjcXnSbtYuRi0NI4AijxLQLW9khnB2MEm+ffWUFqRIS2MQosekcD0RiIaPE xH8r2UASwgLeEsf/z2EBsUWA7CnN58BsZoFcif5Da6DG7mSUmHVgJTNIgk1AT6Lz3HEwm1fA XuLjgQdgg1gEVCUe9T4Cs0UFIiSeN79nhagRlDg58wnYUE4BW4lli3YyQSwIk3g84SKULS5x 68l8Joh/1CSuntvEDHG1usTWjgOMExiFZyEZNQtJ+ywk7bMYOYBse4kHW8sgwtoSyxa+Zoaw 9SWu37nPCmHLSzRvnc28gJF9FaNocWpxUm66kbFealFmcnFxfp5eXmrJJkZgXB3c8lt1B+Pl N46HGAU4GJV4eAv1P0UKsSaWFVfmHmKU4GBWEuFlsgQK8aYkVlalFuXHF5XmpBYfYpTmYFES 53XcdyFCSCA9sSQ1OzW1ILUIJsvEwSnVwOgSsKva/p6ndMm+2N1qD67xqX45NvWHx+OEAO45 S5VudBiJvn+8h2P25CQ5vei9RZOvLS/+tP7rupKaN/FbUy7/O+h7ZOlWRqGFepOS39nwdukz Zvmu2Z1p+a7Jcsur4y8d5eecnvPVc+4L4cwbldHtO0smPMjp8n8zb4Yt6xTuv/P4Ph/Rj69R YinOSDTUYi4qTgQAqeN2bacCAAA= Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Reap] [saag] PSA: New list for discussing EAP related methods X-BeenThere: reap@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "REAP \(RENEW\) EAP" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 19:51:37 -0000 --------------EC2C00B0E247F0D0B57097A4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Yoav, Thanks for the feedback. This issue about the list had come up a short=20 while back when Rick posted his draft on EAP-SASL to SAAG:=20 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/saag/stEf0BxTPKGEJq-2RDrlKj1rxRc We thought that it would make sense to have a separate mailing list on=20 all new EAP related work. This would also allow us to gauge the=20 community interest in the new work. At the end of the day, I believe our objectives are the same: we want to = work on things that the IETF as a community is interested in, and make=20 sure that the work progresses at an acceptable pace. --Mohit On 10/26/2017 08:55 PM, Yoav Nir wrote: > > >> On 26 Oct 2017, at 18:51, Bernard Aboba > > wrote: >> >> There are existing functioning IETF mailing lists relating to EAP. >> >> Why are you starting yet another one? > > +1 > > The EMU mailing list seems appropriate. > > Yoav > > https://tools.ietf.org/wg/emu/ > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/emu/current/maillist.html > > > > _______________________________________________ > REAP mailing list > REAP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/reap --------------EC2C00B0E247F0D0B57097A4 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hi Yoav,

Thanks for the feedback. This issue about the list had come up a short while back when Rick posted his draft on EAP-SASL to SAAG: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/saag/stEf0BxTPKGEJq-2RDrlKj1rxRc

We thought that it would make sense to have a separate mailing list on all new EAP related work. This would also allow us to gauge the community interest in the new work.  

At the end of the day, I believe our objectives are the same: we want to work on things that the IETF as a community is interested in, and make sure that the work progresses at an acceptable pace.

--Mohit

On 10/26/2017 08:55 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:


On 26 Oct 2017, at 18:51, Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> wrote:

There are existing functioning IETF mailing lists relating to EAP. 

Why are you starting yet another one? 

+1

The EMU mailing list seems appropriate.

Yoav




_______________________________________________
REAP mailing list
REAP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/reap

--------------EC2C00B0E247F0D0B57097A4-- From nobody Thu Oct 26 18:03:14 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: reap@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: reap@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F4FF13F415; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:03:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LflqhgjX0K1x; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:03:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vk0-x22e.google.com (mail-vk0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23EC613B1A9; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:03:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vk0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id k123so3274508vkb.3; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:03:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=QIBA5VZZfftWvy6UxNXhmEz4hpMXVzpnXEwl7PqYZ5c=; b=O50qrm3M671nBDu1sWaabCXg9aFDRspomQajOo8NPUjGjW2ydYqYDOM5jfXX9Ji1X4 qbAbDsMRKqNGG3IhOwtgpbKcN5jsXmhon6QOdzGsSykYUuTea4qxDBMqSWEUnS2AduVx SioKHIWMlLPBEZ7HVw5MNAX6vMRGVv9it1OPwtJI5RlyUOjGfihTop3T3q5P7ZjG8Aev 1Qu3PNZQpm7xSnRuR+0WB0C8SCxcRzQCojOus78TyJgvU/UcqsEaDelj/7q9reE5BtSP Gl4ok4Bu08Hj57eHD/QCfOWgG0xgFyBa+k7o9v/yvVfkmXF9UEHzBSNURASTDCnJLYpZ 2FXw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=QIBA5VZZfftWvy6UxNXhmEz4hpMXVzpnXEwl7PqYZ5c=; b=S2h8NGwhn2nCTzPLjAHKlSTtllk9ObQgIDte8RHphPN+DH5W3+paxkLz0anA589Van 3oHg5vB+LQ6cG9Xt77fYN4c9UOUqwm1LcLVKnrBzWa++rGXufMTqMSfVSTYEFhIdQxd6 q+nNAe8+QojumeMDBc0ztjtr+cu8+/meIOGXlLS+cgMkAkfZ3XLyhKt/7Wor6RXd/HlM lPdz2evUaSR2dzVCAKi4FwA8uD658E/O4cE8I3K+QAvUv4TnKeEsnq1IugVFaJ+K4rAk BKNDXl3S2MTcTlII1NT7VWJmSiLANvWWgrQe9ixqrGb6n/dLlYvSsnHcL4UP2hZuW4AE o4tw== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaU6PbO6CE9v6phBXaF/SPCUMz9fWJfTqvocU6bTbmLuw84idJVT kgMFYnpTnkwFdjA6IEJ+4QkCVvGZ4Kf1/gwtUjY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+TmvnaGzP3t5oWz4Ksu/4/FEcOhaPP4OvfQSS2DoEwTuqQajkPoXfdnJ9hXVrX3bugO7I1pHUDavIFy+JqpXug= X-Received: by 10.31.64.199 with SMTP id n190mr4843573vka.26.1509066187988; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:03:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.159.38.130 with HTTP; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:02:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <6b3dcad6-f00c-1fb9-4df6-19f3dc744371@ericsson.com> References: <3dbe94b9-4b2d-1479-8433-8b040cb1cfba@ericsson.com> <6b3dcad6-f00c-1fb9-4df6-19f3dc744371@ericsson.com> From: Bernard Aboba Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:02:47 -0700 Message-ID: To: Mohit Sethi Cc: reap@ietf.org, "saag@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1144737813e527055c7cdace" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Reap] [saag] PSA: New list for discussing EAP related methods X-BeenThere: reap@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "REAP \(RENEW\) EAP" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 01:03:12 -0000 --001a1144737813e527055c7cdace Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" I have nothing against TLS 1.3, but it was not necessary to obsolete RFC 5216 to support TLS 1.2 and there are a number of implementations of TLS 1.3 already in progress with no issues as far as I am aware. So I don't understand why a new document is needed - and the downside is very substantial. Given the prevalence of EAP-TLS in open source, there is great concern over the introduction of encumbrance into a protocol that is widely required in high security environments. Were this to happen, it would in effect impose a "tax" on each of the 2+ billion devices implementing EAP-TLS. A cursory search of the IETF IPR database indicates that your draft could potentially encumber EAP-TLS with a vast number of TLS-related IPR declarations that would not necessarily apply to an RFC 5216 implementation. While there are many installations that wish to take on the costs (and benefits) of TLS 1.3 as well as support for additional ciphersuites, there are also installations that would not be willing to pay for the costs of a "forklift" upgrade for every device and server, particularly if they were forced to migrate off of open-source due to IPR encumbrance. Such a migration should be up to the organization deploying EAP-TLS, not imposed by the IETF without extra-ordinary justification (such as an unpatcheable vulnerability found in previous versions of TLS). In addition, the introduction of support for new authentication modes such as PSK was explicitly rejected by for RFC 5216 in EMU because it complicated the security analysis and would invalidate existing EAP-TLS security proofs that were considered critical to deployment in the highest security installations. When an organization deploys EAP-TLS today they know what they are getting - a protocol focused on certificate authentication that does not attempt to be a "swiss army knife". Such a protocol isn't for everyone (indeed, only a small fraction of all EAP deployments use EAP-TLS), but those that mandate its use have very specific needs. On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Mohit Sethi wrote: > Hi Bernard, > > The EAP-TLS 1.3 document is a very rough drafty version that was submitted > before the cut-off for the last IETF. As you rightly point out, it has the > skeleton and a lot of material from RFC5216, and still many important > details are missing. > > The purpose of this list is to exactly receive these kind of comments. > Should RFC5216 be updated or obsoleted by this draft. And it would be great > if we can have your contributions to the document. We will definitely add > an acknowledgement section and contact the authors of RFC5216 to see if > they can contribute and comment. We plan to have more EAP related > contributions in the near future. We discussed this with the Security ADs > and thought that a separate list would be appropriate to get > feedback/criticism and contributions from the folks interested. > > --Mohit > > On 10/26/2017 06:51 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote: > > There are existing functioning IETF mailing lists relating to EAP. > > Why are you starting yet another one? > > From what I can tell, the EAP-TLS 1.3 draft is merely a copy of RFC 5216 > (with no acknowledgement to the original authors) stating that EAP-TLS > implementations must support TLS 1.3. > > This is ridiculous because there are 1+ Billion existing implementations > out there that > > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 6:02 AM, Mohit Sethi > wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> We have started a mailing list for discussing new EAP related work that >> currently has no obvious home. The mailing list is called REAP (Renew EAP) >> reap@ietf.org and you can subscribe here: >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/reap >> >> Recently several new EAP methods have been proposed. These include for >> example: >> >> EAP-TLS 1.3: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mattsson-eap-tls13-00 >> >> EAP-NOOB: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aura-eap-noob-02 >> >> EAP-SASL: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vanrein-eap-sasl-00 >> >> The list serves as a venue for discussion of these and other EAP related >> drafts that will be submitted in the near future. As courtesy, we will post >> any new draft to SAAG, but we plan to continue the discussion only on the >> REAP mailing list. We have also asked for a short presentation slot during >> SECDISPATCH at IETF 100 in Singapore. >> >> Comments, early feedback, and discussion on existing or new work is more >> than welcome. >> >> --Mohit >> >> _______________________________________________ >> saag mailing list >> saag@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > saag mailing listsaag@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag > > > --001a1144737813e527055c7cdace Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I have nothing against TLS= 1.3, but it was not necessary to obsolete RFC 5216 to support TLS 1.2 and = there are a number of implementations of TLS 1.3 already in progress with n= o issues as far as I am aware. So I don't understand why a new document= is needed - and the downside is very substantial.=C2=A0=C2=A0

Given th= e prevalence of EAP-TLS in open source, there is great concern over the int= roduction of encumbrance into a protocol that is widely required in high se= curity environments.=C2=A0 Were this to happen, it would in effect impose a= "tax" on each of the 2+ billion devices implementing EAP-TLS.

A cursory search of the IETF IPR database indicates that your draft could= potentially encumber EAP-TLS with a vast number of TLS-related IPR declara= tions that would not necessarily apply to an RFC 5216 implementation. While= there are=C2=A0 many installations that wish to take on the costs (and ben= efits) of TLS 1.3 as well as support for additional ciphersuites, there are= also installations that would not be willing to pay for the costs of a &qu= ot;forklift" upgrade for every device and server, particularly if they= were forced to migrate off of open-source due to IPR encumbrance.=C2=A0 Su= ch a migration should be up to the organization deploying EAP-TLS, not impo= sed by the IETF without extra-ordinary justification (such as an unpatcheab= le vulnerability found in previous versions of TLS).=C2=A0=C2=A0

In add= ition, the introduction of support for new authentication modes such as PSK= was explicitly rejected by for RFC 5216 in EMU because it complicated the security analysis and would invalidate exi= sting EAP-TLS security proofs that were considered critical to deployment i= n the highest security installations.=C2=A0 When an organization deploys EA= P-TLS today they know what they are getting - a protocol focused on certifi= cate authentication that does not attempt to be a "swiss army knife&qu= ot;.=C2=A0 Such a protocol isn't for everyone (indeed, only a small fra= ction of all EAP deployments use EAP-TLS), but those that mandate its use h= ave very specific needs.=C2=A0

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Mohit Set= hi <mohit.m.sethi@ericsson.com> wrote:
=20 =20 =20

Hi Bernard,

The EAP-TLS 1.3 document is a very rough drafty version that was submitted before the cut-off for the last IETF. As you rightly point out, it has the skeleton and a lot of material from RFC5216, and still many important details are missing.

The purpose of this list is to exactly receive these kind of comments. Should RFC5216 be updated or obsoleted by this draft. And it would be great if we can have your contributions to the document. We will definitely add an acknowledgement section and contact the authors of RFC5216 to see if they can contribute and comment. We plan to have more EAP related contributions in the near future. We discussed this with the Security ADs and thought that a separate list would be appropriate to get feedback/criticism and contributions from the folks interested.

--Mohit


On 10/26/2017 06:5= 1 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
There are existing functioning IETF mailing lists relating to EAP.=C2=A0

Why are you starting yet another one?=C2=A0

From what I can tell, the EAP-TLS 1.3 draft is merely a copy of RFC 5216 (with no acknowledgement to the original authors) stating that EAP-TLS implementations must support TLS 1.3.=C2=A0

This is ridiculous because there are 1+ Billion existing implementations out there that=C2=A0


On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 6:02 AM, Mohit Sethi <mohit.m.sethi@ericsson.com> wrote:
Dear all,

We have started a mailing list for discussing new EAP related work that currently has no obvious home. The mailing list is called REAP (Renew EAP) reap@ietf.org and you can subscribe here:
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rea= p

Recently several new EAP methods have been proposed. These include for example:

EAP-TLS 1.3: https://tools.ietf.o= rg/html/draft-mattsson-eap-tls13-00

EAP-NOOB: https://tools.ietf.org/html/= draft-aura-eap-noob-02

EAP-SASL: https://tools.ietf.org/ht= ml/draft-vanrein-eap-sasl-00

The list serves as a venue for discussion of these and other EAP related drafts that will be submitted in the near future. As courtesy, we will post any new draft to SAAG, but we plan to continue the discussion only on the REAP mailing list. We have also asked for a short presentation slot during SECDISPATCH at IETF 100 in Singapore.

Comments, early feedback, and discussion on existing or new work is more than welcome.

--Mohit

_______________________________________________
saag mailing list
saag@ietf.or= g
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saa= g



_______________________________________________
saag mailing list
saag@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/ma=
ilman/listinfo/saag


--001a1144737813e527055c7cdace-- From nobody Thu Oct 26 18:07:52 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: reap@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: reap@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BE9A13F415; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:07:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l1oOMAE51T4m; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:07:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vk0-x231.google.com (mail-vk0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F176138BD2; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:07:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vk0-x231.google.com with SMTP id i133so3268093vke.9; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:07:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=7xscIoFwlMC67u0AA3Ulx2NzYi/JbjgEbyiahTdRJ3Q=; b=W26h6xSFa7m5qhMgUxkrvOSmToyTyiJ/gHc1xpqC+3bBWNUoka/LdL2iW+JoXo65sK 1EDlUIOyVXbWDLvZD6b8VchWBfxDZGv8ucd5pdF7jr26KdOIa2xjTv9aRMrswNEPPyet 3zBy1XeVHriMlTpA7ahwdDsKETfzfMrWleE2DNVuYbVwG8jgR5ZixN4fM6sk/FFIuOfQ HX6OSM0SFQ8MCQ6LTMHFWT1BIyDcEE/kIJCQAhuvEkVBfMU98WlIw17Typ8ZRwXtsP4V GANfx086/h0FCQhrn2XBfUgT3j0pGJf18P7cqp01yaBpMItvJ+AtvBfqgYOP8Ls4mwa1 1/eA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=7xscIoFwlMC67u0AA3Ulx2NzYi/JbjgEbyiahTdRJ3Q=; b=d3Rim0duW6NfSJxT1vNJeIUyWngdCe64GdGFvwbA1ep7lTkyJW+XiqhgI7ML1kax55 3IgmBntuX7tB7U74VpicWCUwVNIO49+yZw3v/1l6vyaimvhVqHRigVw4iHze/3w9LvIn GcRVQOu5jqHcc10AREQetU9/MNmMU4OYO8rsJ39n97AgT1obIFb/sF7LZsNXOOpgWWXb gytUt/iRRG1gTVm9DMIG/EICMPx9XJs5pKJQzxeyVQMCNwKhQudhSAfmD7MXlcoWWmUj aCCayW0gtK+4vImLz+cRCIUmrRnaubQe/acZelzq0QcK+clyc5Ri4esrG6LKtKD2H/n2 A43w== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaVWllnUW9+TECWJVFoIiXaYmYEjQjqR7JzMSD8mmNiKFTpyS2tG PPdyGZ9jYlVrw1kwIt6+ppvVqg7Hbgu2yKRl3bc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+R9D7zwTalHeqYbMa5tdpp4xMDx7b0UpkG0SPq5vHdWO7SfcPySkirK2ymrOOJU/SJChPNiHfPKqAvT/OWemR4= X-Received: by 10.31.157.7 with SMTP id g7mr5599537vke.130.1509066466115; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:07:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.159.38.130 with HTTP; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:07:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4c6c9bc8-6056-c03d-a0f6-f1f32fabef39@ericsson.com> References: <3dbe94b9-4b2d-1479-8433-8b040cb1cfba@ericsson.com> <4c6c9bc8-6056-c03d-a0f6-f1f32fabef39@ericsson.com> From: Bernard Aboba Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:07:25 -0700 Message-ID: To: Mohit Sethi Cc: Yoav Nir , reap@ietf.org, Security Area Advisory Group Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1142d8d2a7c521055c7ceaf2" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Reap] [saag] PSA: New list for discussing EAP related methods X-BeenThere: reap@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "REAP \(RENEW\) EAP" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 01:07:49 -0000 --001a1142d8d2a7c521055c7ceaf2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Creating a separate list has real drawbacks and very little in the way of benefits. If your desire is to get feedback from EAP implementers, why not post on a list they already subscribe to (such as EMU)? Creating a new list is in effect requiring those people to actively decide to pay attention to your work, rather than you bringing the work to them. For a protocol that is more than 20 years old, with dozens of implementations and billions of existing devices, this is not a sound way to move forward. On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Mohit Sethi wrote: > Hi Yoav, > > Thanks for the feedback. This issue about the list had come up a short > while back when Rick posted his draft on EAP-SASL to SAAG: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/saag/stEf0BxTPKGEJq-2RDrlKj1rxRc > > We thought that it would make sense to have a separate mailing list on all > new EAP related work. This would also allow us to gauge the community > interest in the new work. > At the end of the day, I believe our objectives are the same: we want to > work on things that the IETF as a community is interested in, and make sure > that the work progresses at an acceptable pace. > > --Mohit > > > On 10/26/2017 08:55 PM, Yoav Nir wrote: > > > > On 26 Oct 2017, at 18:51, Bernard Aboba wrote: > > There are existing functioning IETF mailing lists relating to EAP. > > Why are you starting yet another one? > > > +1 > > The EMU mailing list seems appropriate. > > Yoav > > https://tools.ietf.org/wg/emu/ > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/emu/current/maillist.html > > > > _______________________________________________ > REAP mailing listREAP@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/reap > > > --001a1142d8d2a7c521055c7ceaf2 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Creating a separate list has real drawbacks and very littl= e in the way of benefits.=C2=A0

If your desire is to get= feedback from EAP implementers, why not post on a list they already subscr= ibe to (such as EMU)?

Creating a new list is in ef= fect requiring those people to actively decide to pay attention to your wor= k, rather than you bringing the work to them.=C2=A0

For a protocol that is more than 20 years old, with dozens of implementat= ions and billions of existing devices, this is not a sound way to move forw= ard.=C2=A0



On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Mohit = Sethi <mohit.m.sethi@ericsson.com> wrote:
=20 =20 =20

Hi Yoav,

Thanks for the feedback. This issue about the list had come up a short while back when Rick posted his draft on EAP-SASL to SAAG: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/saag/stEf0= BxTPKGEJq-2RDrlKj1rxRc

We thought that it would make sense to have a separate mailing list on all new EAP related work. This would also allow us to gauge the community interest in the new work.=C2=A0=C2=A0

At the end of the day, I believe our objectives are the same: we want to work on things that the IETF as a community is interested in, and make sure that the work progresses at an acceptable pace.

--Mohit


On 10/26/2017 08:55 = PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
=20

On 26 Oct 2017, at 18:51, Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>= ; wrote:

There are existing functioning IETF mailing lists relating to EAP.=C2=A0

Why are you starting yet another one?=C2=A0

+1

The EMU mailing list seems appropriate.

Yoav




_______________________________________________
REAP mailing list
REAP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mail=
man/listinfo/reap


--001a1142d8d2a7c521055c7ceaf2-- From nobody Thu Oct 26 18:16:33 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: reap@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: reap@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5E3F13B1A9; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:16:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o6UInMo_u_4w; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:16:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ua0-x22c.google.com (mail-ua0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23C1A138BD2; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:16:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ua0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id w45so3805124uac.3; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:16:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=1uwYbky3C/SRVCqquB9ZdxcbJCEalXgawNhznVOkDig=; b=JtU7D29YdU83zRB8ghOKaA6HQfewsmhJ2SXVtSi6ffpuXON6YmZAd8/R22GzkE0clR XvXN2vnec+CACACYy/fWUNlE9PNN5pUYD8xkSWOpZvqBv4aFBGCTROhVrB6X1cy7LHvR lL9M5mCWlHEp6v5pT0QsriB0N8LY34+kq3apU24W7zjq59xAEJ/+ABufHjpUgSdnOrNa tvYXsBMoL5FaIIHDli8b+IdDAcenGBrxHujNZahTb9/p5nyug1atUOR4MhepPJ6iw3Qe mFk7+pdMv69gFFEu71Wg9MgNHSkyy7zncDKkh5fwYeMQePJRkr0qtdtGBv2kmoNPJVLy RQ6w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=1uwYbky3C/SRVCqquB9ZdxcbJCEalXgawNhznVOkDig=; b=bl3TGwyaUqpQIVLJ+MI74EBCyEAzDheqp7pJ4yyuy8TL6oncjRi0H0iNFSHn+IXTes W4P30Rh3Ekc0BarmHMKCyqGC7MJDkn7Fz6Co9Lp2WDuqQFkkyw/Z3mc8ejTdfbqxuzC6 3bHtx8Ss4DNcmqmXz49TByJuNIrdxdfwIcVl9l0YEi8zEVKExehU2gyRKxkp3MAV3pGp zq2P6JQKB+WkTDgsq4yBiOqJmZmuWKoQ48nDMdfTwONeG38crMwcUPgZoY4zDu6+2MWL hIdsc1xHXUHdcJBSJiLoaozdL2YtkNNldS8xSkTk/BdWwcuqLyjWq+nyJficBsEbYVXU gY7w== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaW/87Or0rkf31OG6fmm+4IgOHHMv2TbZpoLW4gS/6L99pLoIJOZ w1qsfvtu2rQ27OJ3x9O43y0ALSRMTzNbQYnn0j9oXA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+Rg/46M2g6qGsX6aK9J2eg/maF9ne8Ar+JaBpXwA2Xs7wRtye/3MXRIlrpVYgSUNHF+yrdro1H0YTzI8oRj7Qo= X-Received: by 10.176.20.225 with SMTP id f30mr5965780uae.66.1509066985064; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:16:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.159.38.130 with HTTP; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:16:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <3dbe94b9-4b2d-1479-8433-8b040cb1cfba@ericsson.com> <6b3dcad6-f00c-1fb9-4df6-19f3dc744371@ericsson.com> From: Bernard Aboba Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:16:04 -0700 Message-ID: To: Kathleen Moriarty Cc: Mohit Sethi , reap@ietf.org, "saag@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1145ab00964e7f055c7d0901" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Reap] [saag] PSA: New list for discussing EAP related methods X-BeenThere: reap@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "REAP \(RENEW\) EAP" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 01:16:28 -0000 --001a1145ab00964e7f055c7d0901 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Yes, the EMU WG list has been used for discussion of EAP methods since the WG closed. That list is a better venue for discussion of EAP methods than a new REAP list, so as to ensure that proper attention is paid to backward compatibility, IPR, security properties and other critical aspects of EAP method design. After all, we are talking about a protocol that is 20+ years old that is implemented on billions of devices, many of which utilize open-source. On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Kathleen Moriarty < kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Mohit Sethi > wrote: > > Hi Bernard, > > > > The EAP-TLS 1.3 document is a very rough drafty version that was > submitted > > before the cut-off for the last IETF. As you rightly point out, it has > the > > skeleton and a lot of material from RFC5216, and still many important > > details are missing. > > > > The purpose of this list is to exactly receive these kind of comments. > > Should RFC5216 be updated or obsoleted by this draft. And it would be > great > > if we can have your contributions to the document. We will definitely > add an > > acknowledgement section and contact the authors of RFC5216 to see if they > > can contribute and comment. We plan to have more EAP related > contributions > > in the near future. We discussed this with the Security ADs and thought > that > > a separate list would be appropriate to get feedback/criticism and > > contributions from the folks interested. > > I'm sorry, I didn't realize that a revision of 5216 was involved and > that the authors were not notified at the onset as is normal practice > in case they want to continue as authors. Thank you for spotting this > issue Bernard. > > Is there an existing list that should be used? Is there adequate > overlap in objectives and personnel? > > Thank you, > Kathleen > > > > > --Mohit > > > > > > On 10/26/2017 06:51 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote: > > > > There are existing functioning IETF mailing lists relating to EAP. > > > > Why are you starting yet another one? > > > > From what I can tell, the EAP-TLS 1.3 draft is merely a copy of RFC 5216 > > (with no acknowledgement to the original authors) stating that EAP-TLS > > implementations must support TLS 1.3. > > > > This is ridiculous because there are 1+ Billion existing implementations > out > > there that > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 6:02 AM, Mohit Sethi > > > wrote: > >> > >> Dear all, > >> > >> We have started a mailing list for discussing new EAP related work that > >> currently has no obvious home. The mailing list is called REAP (Renew > EAP) > >> reap@ietf.org and you can subscribe here: > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/reap > >> > >> Recently several new EAP methods have been proposed. These include for > >> example: > >> > >> EAP-TLS 1.3: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mattsson-eap-tls13-00 > >> > >> EAP-NOOB: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aura-eap-noob-02 > >> > >> EAP-SASL: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vanrein-eap-sasl-00 > >> > >> The list serves as a venue for discussion of these and other EAP related > >> drafts that will be submitted in the near future. As courtesy, we will > post > >> any new draft to SAAG, but we plan to continue the discussion only on > the > >> REAP mailing list. We have also asked for a short presentation slot > during > >> SECDISPATCH at IETF 100 in Singapore. > >> > >> Comments, early feedback, and discussion on existing or new work is more > >> than welcome. > >> > >> --Mohit > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> saag mailing list > >> saag@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > saag mailing list > > saag@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > saag mailing list > > saag@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > Kathleen > --001a1145ab00964e7f055c7d0901 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yes, the EMU WG=C2=A0 list has been used for discussion of= EAP methods since the WG closed.=C2=A0

That list is a b= etter venue for discussion of EAP=C2=A0 methods than a new REAP list, so as= to ensure that proper attention is paid to backward compatibility, IPR, se= curity properties and other critical aspects of EAP method design.=C2=A0

After all, we are talking about a protocol that is 2= 0+ years old that is implemented on billions of devices, many of which util= ize open-source.=C2=A0=C2=A0








On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 a= t 11:53 AM, Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail= .com> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Mohit Sethi <mohit.m.sethi@ericsson.com> wrote:
> Hi Bernard,
>
> The EAP-TLS 1.3 document is a very rough drafty version that was submi= tted
> before the cut-off for the last IETF. As you rightly point out, it has= the
> skeleton and a lot of material from RFC5216, and still many important<= br> > details are missing.
>
> The purpose of this list is to exactly receive these kind of comments.=
> Should RFC5216 be updated or obsoleted by this draft. And it would be = great
> if we can have your contributions to the document. We will definitely = add an
> acknowledgement section and contact the authors of RFC5216 to see if t= hey
> can contribute and comment. We plan to have more EAP related contribut= ions
> in the near future. We discussed this with the Security ADs and though= t that
> a separate list would be appropriate to get feedback/criticism and
> contributions from the folks interested.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that a revision of 5216 was invo= lved and
that the authors were not notified at the onset as is normal practice
in case they want to continue as authors.=C2=A0 Thank you for spotting this=
issue Bernard.

Is there an existing list that should be used?=C2=A0 Is there adequate
overlap in objectives and personnel?

Thank you,
Kathleen

>
> --Mohit
>
>
> On 10/26/2017 06:51 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>
> There are existing functioning IETF mailing lists relating to EAP.
>
> Why are you starting yet another one?
>
> From what I can tell, the EAP-TLS 1.3 draft is merely a copy of RFC 52= 16
> (with no acknowledgement to the original authors) stating that EAP-TLS=
> implementations must support TLS 1.3.
>
> This is ridiculous because there are 1+ Billion existing implementatio= ns out
> there that
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 6:02 AM, Mohit Sethi <mohit.m.sethi@ericsson.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> We have started a mailing list for discussing new EAP related work= that
>> currently has no obvious home. The mailing list is called REAP (Re= new EAP)
>> reap@ietf.org and you can sub= scribe here:
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/reap
>>
>> Recently several new EAP methods have been proposed. These include= for
>> example:
>>
>> EAP-TLS 1.3: https://tools.ietf.org/= html/draft-mattsson-eap-tls13-00
>>
>> EAP-NOOB: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aura-eap-noob-02
>>
>> EAP-SASL: https://tools.ietf.org/html/= draft-vanrein-eap-sasl-00
>>
>> The list serves as a venue for discussion of these and other EAP r= elated
>> drafts that will be submitted in the near future. As courtesy, we = will post
>> any new draft to SAAG, but we plan to continue the discussion only= on the
>> REAP mailing list. We have also asked for a short presentation slo= t during
>> SECDISPATCH at IETF 100 in Singapore.
>>
>> Comments, early feedback, and discussion on existing or new work i= s more
>> than welcome.
>>
>> --Mohit
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> saag mailing list
>> saag@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> saag mailing list
> saag@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> saag mailing list
> saag@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag >



--

Best regards,
Kathleen

--001a1145ab00964e7f055c7d0901-- From nobody Thu Oct 26 18:43:44 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: reap@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: reap@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C02613A41F; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:43:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jLs4HUtkbAML; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:43:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qt0-x232.google.com (mail-qt0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A992013F4CB; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:43:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qt0-x232.google.com with SMTP id 31so6685974qtz.9; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:43:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=vybTILVLThz2X/6QS0SVHs/owRIsuBvQ3Emi6X2zfeg=; b=r+UcSx8eWWoHgkzYa0ycah9SJ+xrVNGgSaUQuPlqlRGxMYO3J3gYK++rimoTkOqWIm hXkO7CfmZC7ou2xWossVqA0w58Hdk4Upaof4SURAcG1F4bxodde2elooicstRh2CxyGs VvvBHr3oPv984O/3spPfQTPfiiKFfzrLpUDnIQP1oc7LElqXdQfqVwoGwjZIO3zdEDLH YoEtGmyJ0rMeGd0I6HBDnhAtodwQ1D+ZyaXq+D8Dh2veCaqquvE8rI0AxEKKkDLLudta 5kF5EJWXKgvmjnVQYo5FwppX9flFfgS6eJKh6Icsj0x6dmnFCzqI+zR42j7W+89uQGe4 mNvw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=vybTILVLThz2X/6QS0SVHs/owRIsuBvQ3Emi6X2zfeg=; b=oUK5ifdW6qlvodoilgC+pVHghuuyVk7u8ncK19YmXO+xXcJKEluTNbS50rbHeSi1bO d1BDQM1RVAhncxfWx+rCbTLTBbQJaxHq/3uX1ElkWFD1B718Uzs3QsJcP/8t1gGd8+mp fQwaA0dRrhceoaQVO3TKwsB463SNKa8/SqA4tMLVdNoKBGQVct/KUDXDkAhLRwHe+vRA kZBtmwGFdtmJfyyksMu0HEicweX7yN/KUA4BCN7neZlBzt1J+9/+WlVPQ40m9oTM0v93 vws6oaeeS2IHFwZmzbfdpToN7oZmnhjwQ8sXYgq6kYg9t08I/44nz6LcwqjqZbKOye5j Fn4g== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaWNiD1qLYkm0pr+74IkLt3roUXimDVKc0qby3HEmgCiT/BUZ4uk YDOBRYiwLoi0kaT7xHkBPc6TIwO4 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+SLoTVxssoa3Va6svRBoU12ahmiw2XRQGk8RO856Jknfdcmt0lYIKwHY62GnSY3wKJaMal43A== X-Received: by 10.237.34.201 with SMTP id q9mr38829872qtc.198.1509068613406; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:43:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.6] (209-6-124-204.s3530.c3-0.arl-ubr1.sbo-arl.ma.cable.rcncustomer.com. [209.6.124.204]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e62sm4277328qkb.11.2017.10.26.18.43.32 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:43:32 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-2A7FD865-AA95-4AF5-B368-2F44CD914C8B Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) From: Kathleen Moriarty X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (14F89) In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 21:43:31 -0400 Cc: Mohit Sethi , reap@ietf.org, "saag@ietf.org" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <112200E8-0E1D-4A38-800D-54892BFF67F6@gmail.com> References: <3dbe94b9-4b2d-1479-8433-8b040cb1cfba@ericsson.com> <6b3dcad6-f00c-1fb9-4df6-19f3dc744371@ericsson.com> To: Bernard Aboba Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Reap] [saag] PSA: New list for discussing EAP related methods X-BeenThere: reap@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "REAP \(RENEW\) EAP" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 01:43:37 -0000 --Apple-Mail-2A7FD865-AA95-4AF5-B368-2F44CD914C8B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable That sounds like the best plan. Thank you, Kathleen=20 Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 26, 2017, at 9:16 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote= : >=20 > Yes, the EMU WG list has been used for discussion of EAP methods since th= e WG closed.=20 >=20 > That list is a better venue for discussion of EAP methods than a new REAP= list, so as to ensure that proper attention is paid to backward compatibili= ty, IPR, security properties and other critical aspects of EAP method design= .=20 >=20 > After all, we are talking about a protocol that is 20+ years old that is i= mplemented on billions of devices, many of which utilize open-source. =20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Kathleen Moriarty wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Mohit Sethi = wrote: >> > Hi Bernard, >> > >> > The EAP-TLS 1.3 document is a very rough drafty version that was submit= ted >> > before the cut-off for the last IETF. As you rightly point out, it has t= he >> > skeleton and a lot of material from RFC5216, and still many important >> > details are missing. >> > >> > The purpose of this list is to exactly receive these kind of comments. >> > Should RFC5216 be updated or obsoleted by this draft. And it would be g= reat >> > if we can have your contributions to the document. We will definitely a= dd an >> > acknowledgement section and contact the authors of RFC5216 to see if th= ey >> > can contribute and comment. We plan to have more EAP related contributi= ons >> > in the near future. We discussed this with the Security ADs and thought= that >> > a separate list would be appropriate to get feedback/criticism and >> > contributions from the folks interested. >>=20 >> I'm sorry, I didn't realize that a revision of 5216 was involved and >> that the authors were not notified at the onset as is normal practice >> in case they want to continue as authors. Thank you for spotting this >> issue Bernard. >>=20 >> Is there an existing list that should be used? Is there adequate >> overlap in objectives and personnel? >>=20 >> Thank you, >> Kathleen >>=20 >> > >> > --Mohit >> > >> > >> > On 10/26/2017 06:51 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote: >> > >> > There are existing functioning IETF mailing lists relating to EAP. >> > >> > Why are you starting yet another one? >> > >> > =46rom what I can tell, the EAP-TLS 1.3 draft is merely a copy of RFC 5= 216 >> > (with no acknowledgement to the original authors) stating that EAP-TLS >> > implementations must support TLS 1.3. >> > >> > This is ridiculous because there are 1+ Billion existing implementation= s out >> > there that >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 6:02 AM, Mohit Sethi >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> We have started a mailing list for discussing new EAP related work tha= t >> >> currently has no obvious home. The mailing list is called REAP (Renew E= AP) >> >> reap@ietf.org and you can subscribe here: >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/reap >> >> >> >> Recently several new EAP methods have been proposed. These include for= >> >> example: >> >> >> >> EAP-TLS 1.3: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mattsson-eap-tls13-00 >> >> >> >> EAP-NOOB: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aura-eap-noob-02 >> >> >> >> EAP-SASL: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vanrein-eap-sasl-00 >> >> >> >> The list serves as a venue for discussion of these and other EAP relat= ed >> >> drafts that will be submitted in the near future. As courtesy, we will= post >> >> any new draft to SAAG, but we plan to continue the discussion only on t= he >> >> REAP mailing list. We have also asked for a short presentation slot du= ring >> >> SECDISPATCH at IETF 100 in Singapore. >> >> >> >> Comments, early feedback, and discussion on existing or new work is mo= re >> >> than welcome. >> >> >> >> --Mohit >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> saag mailing list >> >> saag@ietf.org >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > saag mailing list >> > saag@ietf.org >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > saag mailing list >> > saag@ietf.org >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag >> > >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> -- >>=20 >> Best regards, >> Kathleen >=20 --Apple-Mail-2A7FD865-AA95-4AF5-B368-2F44CD914C8B Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
That sounds like the best plan.
<= div id=3D"AppleMailSignature">
Thank= you,
Kathleen 

Sent from my= iPhone

On Oct 26, 2017, at 9:16 PM, Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, the EMU WG&= nbsp; list has been used for discussion of EAP methods since the WG closed.&= nbsp;

That list is a better venue for discussion of EAP&n= bsp; methods than a new REAP list, so as to ensure that proper attention is p= aid to backward compatibility, IPR, security properties and other critical a= spects of EAP method design. 

After all, we ar= e talking about a protocol that is 20+ years old that is implemented on bill= ions of devices, many of which utilize open-source.  







On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Mohit Sethi &= lt;mohit.m.sethi@ericsson.com<= /a>> wrote:
> Hi Bernard,
>
> The EAP-TLS 1.3 document is a very rough drafty version that was submit= ted
> before the cut-off for the last IETF. As you rightly point out, it has t= he
> skeleton and a lot of material from RFC5216, and still many important > details are missing.
>
> The purpose of this list is to exactly receive these kind of comments.<= br> > Should RFC5216 be updated or obsoleted by this draft. And it would be g= reat
> if we can have your contributions to the document. We will definitely a= dd an
> acknowledgement section and contact the authors of RFC5216 to see if th= ey
> can contribute and comment. We plan to have more EAP related contributi= ons
> in the near future. We discussed this with the Security ADs and thought= that
> a separate list would be appropriate to get feedback/criticism and
> contributions from the folks interested.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that a revision of 5216 was involved and<= br> that the authors were not notified at the onset as is normal practice
in case they want to continue as authors.  Thank you for spotting this<= br> issue Bernard.

Is there an existing list that should be used?  Is there adequate
overlap in objectives and personnel?

Thank you,
Kathleen

>
> --Mohit
>
>
> On 10/26/2017 06:51 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>
> There are existing functioning IETF mailing lists relating to EAP.
>
> Why are you starting yet another one?
>
> =46rom what I can tell, the EAP-TLS 1.3 draft is merely a copy of RFC 5= 216
> (with no acknowledgement to the original authors) stating that EAP-TLS<= br> > implementations must support TLS 1.3.
>
> This is ridiculous because there are 1+ Billion existing implementation= s out
> there that
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 6:02 AM, Mohit Sethi <mohit.m.sethi@ericsson.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> We have started a mailing list for discussing new EAP related work t= hat
>> currently has no obvious home. The mailing list is called REAP (Ren= ew EAP)
>> reap@ietf.org and you can subs= cribe here:
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/reap=
>>
>> Recently several new EAP methods have been proposed. These include f= or
>> example:
>>
>> EAP-TLS 1.3: https://tools.ietf.org/ht= ml/draft-mattsson-eap-tls13-00
>>
>> EAP-NOOB: https://tools.ietf.org/html/= draft-aura-eap-noob-02
>>
>> EAP-SASL: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vanrein-eap-sasl-00
>>
>> The list serves as a venue for discussion of these and other EAP re= lated
>> drafts that will be submitted in the near future. As courtesy, we w= ill post
>> any new draft to SAAG, but we plan to continue the discussion only o= n the
>> REAP mailing list. We have also asked for a short presentation slot= during
>> SECDISPATCH at IETF 100 in Singapore.
>>
>> Comments, early feedback, and discussion on existing or new work is= more
>> than welcome.
>>
>> --Mohit
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> saag mailing list
>> saag@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag=
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> saag mailing list
> saag@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag
= >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> saag mailing list
> saag@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag
= >



--

Best regards,
Kathleen

= --Apple-Mail-2A7FD865-AA95-4AF5-B368-2F44CD914C8B-- From nobody Fri Oct 27 04:55:37 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: reap@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: reap@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC7EA13F507; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 04:55:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.5 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qq-8UehXMp7Q; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 04:55:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED78113F511; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 04:55:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=20655; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1509105329; x=1510314929; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=/W6IwO0pwDlTEJLT4EutdpzB4s/0WB8qBFCMNNUNyug=; b=Wpb+Ex6NfXAZgrmPsHegCLOEa6nlZiWqUpf2cNNgGZYiyB7Fp/Kj2VX3 t5/kl58BDI+KC9WogvgXSKM/aZLK30QeVfc3Vz/GP4ypu5bq4vuZ7r+4d qc6vJmUuDrnc6hPZ9XUGSH7sAPOoDa+66VtEWzYfWaa3+bC/OUBQUr3Py I=; X-Files: signature.asc : 481 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CgAQDZHfNZ/xbLJq1cGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBgzGBEm4ng3qLE49yJohPiC6FRRCCAQcDGAEKhRgChQoWAQIBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBayiFHgEBAQMBASFLCxALGAwbAwICIQYfEQYBDAYCAQGKBwMVEKkRgicmh?= =?us-ascii?q?xgNgyMBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEOCgWDLoVAKQuBaYENgl6Bb4NNgmE?= =?us-ascii?q?Fh1WRLIhFPIRCgiOBAYdMUIR5i3SHOYxeOYh3gTkmCSiBaDQhCB0VSYJkgiM5H?= =?us-ascii?q?IFpPzYBi2sBAQE?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.44,304,1505779200"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="698279204" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 Oct 2017 11:55:26 +0000 Received: from [10.61.96.63] (dhcp-10-61-96-63.cisco.com [10.61.96.63]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v9RBtPkk030225; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 11:55:25 GMT To: Kathleen Moriarty , Bernard Aboba Cc: reap@ietf.org, Mohit Sethi , "saag@ietf.org" References: <3dbe94b9-4b2d-1479-8433-8b040cb1cfba@ericsson.com> <6b3dcad6-f00c-1fb9-4df6-19f3dc744371@ericsson.com> <112200E8-0E1D-4A38-800D-54892BFF67F6@gmail.com> From: Eliot Lear Message-ID: Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:55:08 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <112200E8-0E1D-4A38-800D-54892BFF67F6@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="TVqle0GMKRf7OxwCq5whJ0CgU3iw7iVM1" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Reap] [saag] PSA: New list for discussing EAP related methods X-BeenThere: reap@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "REAP \(RENEW\) EAP" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 11:55:35 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --TVqle0GMKRf7OxwCq5whJ0CgU3iw7iVM1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="K3cjR6hn7OsvQHlghiKN58MaWJNL7SfDI"; protected-headers="v1" From: Eliot Lear To: Kathleen Moriarty , Bernard Aboba Cc: reap@ietf.org, Mohit Sethi , "saag@ietf.org" Message-ID: Subject: Re: [saag] PSA: New list for discussing EAP related methods References: <3dbe94b9-4b2d-1479-8433-8b040cb1cfba@ericsson.com> <6b3dcad6-f00c-1fb9-4df6-19f3dc744371@ericsson.com> <112200E8-0E1D-4A38-800D-54892BFF67F6@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <112200E8-0E1D-4A38-800D-54892BFF67F6@gmail.com> --K3cjR6hn7OsvQHlghiKN58MaWJNL7SfDI Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------7EB59F17637EB9AE94300361" Content-Language: en-US This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------7EB59F17637EB9AE94300361 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Kathleen, So the plan is to close reap and use emu? Eliot On 10/27/17 3:43 AM, Kathleen Moriarty wrote: > That sounds like the best plan. > > Thank you, > Kathleen=C2=A0 > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Oct 26, 2017, at 9:16 PM, Bernard Aboba > wrote: > >> Yes, the EMU WG=C2=A0 list has been used for discussion of EAP methods= >> since the WG closed.=C2=A0 >> >> That list is a better venue for discussion of EAP=C2=A0 methods than a= new >> REAP list, so as to ensure that proper attention is paid to backward >> compatibility, IPR, security properties and other critical aspects of >> EAP method design.=C2=A0 >> >> After all, we are talking about a protocol that is 20+ years old that >> is implemented on billions of devices, many of which utilize >> open-source.=C2=A0=C2=A0 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Kathleen Moriarty >> > > wrote: >> >> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Mohit Sethi >> > >> wrote: >> > Hi Bernard, >> > >> > The EAP-TLS 1.3 document is a very rough drafty version that >> was submitted >> > before the cut-off for the last IETF. As you rightly point out, >> it has the >> > skeleton and a lot of material from RFC5216, and still many >> important >> > details are missing. >> > >> > The purpose of this list is to exactly receive these kind of >> comments. >> > Should RFC5216 be updated or obsoleted by this draft. And it >> would be great >> > if we can have your contributions to the document. We will >> definitely add an >> > acknowledgement section and contact the authors of RFC5216 to >> see if they >> > can contribute and comment. We plan to have more EAP related >> contributions >> > in the near future. We discussed this with the Security ADs and >> thought that >> > a separate list would be appropriate to get feedback/criticism a= nd >> > contributions from the folks interested. >> >> I'm sorry, I didn't realize that a revision of 5216 was involved a= nd >> that the authors were not notified at the onset as is normal pract= ice >> in case they want to continue as authors.=C2=A0 Thank you for spot= ting >> this >> issue Bernard. >> >> Is there an existing list that should be used?=C2=A0 Is there adeq= uate >> overlap in objectives and personnel? >> >> Thank you, >> Kathleen >> >> > >> > --Mohit >> > >> > >> > On 10/26/2017 06:51 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote: >> > >> > There are existing functioning IETF mailing lists relating to EA= P. >> > >> > Why are you starting yet another one? >> > >> > From what I can tell, the EAP-TLS 1.3 draft is merely a copy of >> RFC 5216 >> > (with no acknowledgement to the original authors) stating that >> EAP-TLS >> > implementations must support TLS 1.3. >> > >> > This is ridiculous because there are 1+ Billion existing >> implementations out >> > there that >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 6:02 AM, Mohit Sethi >> > >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> We have started a mailing list for discussing new EAP related >> work that >> >> currently has no obvious home. The mailing list is called REAP >> (Renew EAP) >> >> reap@ietf.org and you can subscribe here= : >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/reap >> >> >> >> >> Recently several new EAP methods have been proposed. These >> include for >> >> example: >> >> >> >> EAP-TLS 1.3: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mattsson-eap-tls13-00 >> >> >> >> >> EAP-NOOB: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aura-eap-noob-02 >> >> >> >> >> EAP-SASL: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vanrein-eap-sasl-00 >> >> >> >> >> The list serves as a venue for discussion of these and other >> EAP related >> >> drafts that will be submitted in the near future. As courtesy, >> we will post >> >> any new draft to SAAG, but we plan to continue the discussion >> only on the >> >> REAP mailing list. We have also asked for a short presentation >> slot during >> >> SECDISPATCH at IETF 100 in Singapore. >> >> >> >> Comments, early feedback, and discussion on existing or new >> work is more >> >> than welcome. >> >> >> >> --Mohit >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> saag mailing list >> >> saag@ietf.org >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > saag mailing list >> > saag@ietf.org >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag >> >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > saag mailing list >> > saag@ietf.org >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag >> >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Best regards, >> Kathleen >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > saag mailing list > saag@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag --------------7EB59F17637EB9AE94300361 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Kathleen,

So the plan is to close reap and use emu?

Eliot


On 10/27/17 3:43 AM, Kathleen Moriarty= wrote:
That sounds like the best plan.

Thank you,
Kathleen=C2=A0

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 26, 2017, at 9:16 PM, Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes, the EMU WG=C2=A0 list has been used for discussion of EAP methods since the WG closed.=C2=A0

That list is a better venue for discussion of EAP=C2=A0 methods than a new REAP list, so as to ensure that proper attention is paid to backward compatibility, IPR, security properties and other critical aspects of EAP method design.=C2=A0

After all, we are talking about a protocol that is 20+ years old that is implemented on billions of devices, many of which utilize open-source.=C2=A0=C2=A0








On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.mor= iarty.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Mohit Sethi= <mohit.m.sethi@ericsson.com> wrote:
> Hi Bernard,
>
> The EAP-TLS 1.3 document is a very rough drafty version that was submitted
> before the cut-off for the last IETF. As you rightly point out, it has the
> skeleton and a lot of material from RFC5216, and still many important
> details are missing.
>
> The purpose of this list is to exactly receive these kind of comments.
> Should RFC5216 be updated or obsoleted by this draft. And it would be great
> if we can have your contributions to the document. We will definitely add an
> acknowledgement section and contact the authors of RFC5216 to see if they
> can contribute and comment. We plan to have more EAP related contributions
> in the near future. We discussed this with the Security ADs and thought that
> a separate list would be appropriate to get feedback/criticism and
> contributions from the folks interested.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that a revision of 5216 was involved and
that the authors were not notified at the onset as is normal practice
in case they want to continue as authors.=C2=A0 Thank you= for spotting this
issue Bernard.

Is there an existing list that should be used?=C2=A0 Is t= here adequate
overlap in objectives and personnel?

Thank you,
Kathleen

>
> --Mohit
>
>
> On 10/26/2017 06:51 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
= >
> There are existing functioning IETF mailing lists relating to EAP.
>
> Why are you starting yet another one?
>
> From what I can tell, the EAP-TLS 1.3 draft is merely a copy of RFC 5216
> (with no acknowledgement to the original authors) stating that EAP-TLS
> implementations must support TLS 1.3.
>
> This is ridiculous because there are 1+ Billion existing implementations out
> there that
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 6:02 AM, Mohit Sethi <mohit.m.sethi@ericsson.com= >
> wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> We have started a mailing list for discussing new EAP related work that
>> currently has no obvious home. The mailing list is called REAP (Renew EAP)
>> reap@ietf.org and you can subscribe here:
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailm= an/listinfo/reap
>>
>> Recently several new EAP methods have been proposed. These include for
>> example:
>>
>> EAP-TLS 1.3: https://tools.ietf.org/htm= l/draft-mattsson-eap-tls13-00
>>
>> EAP-NOOB: https://tools.ietf.org/htm= l/draft-aura-eap-noob-02
>>
>> EAP-SASL: https://tools.ietf.org/htm= l/draft-vanrein-eap-sasl-00
>>
>> The list serves as a venue for discussion of these and other EAP related
>> drafts that will be submitted in the near future. As courtesy, we will post
>> any new draft to SAAG, but we plan to continue the discussion only on the
>> REAP mailing list. We have also asked for a short presentation slot during
>> SECDISPATCH at IETF 100 in Singapore.
>>
>> Comments, early feedback, and discussion on existing or new work is more
>> than welcome.
>>
>> --Mohit
>>
>> _______________________________________= ________
>> saag mailing list
>> saag@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailm= an/listinfo/saag
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________= ____
> saag mailing list
> saag@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailm= an/listinfo/saag
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________= ____
> saag mailing list
> saag@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailm= an/listinfo/saag
>



--

Best regards,
Kathleen



_______________________________________________
saag mailing list
saag@=
ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag

--------------7EB59F17637EB9AE94300361-- --K3cjR6hn7OsvQHlghiKN58MaWJNL7SfDI-- --TVqle0GMKRf7OxwCq5whJ0CgU3iw7iVM1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJZ8x6cAAoJEIe2a0bZ0noz5fwH/1sppW7lDrShjLE2wZua9YUI msGrFTVz+nvKG+SLXMyVZblCUTg/WckyYCthZ3btIQPjPAppeVVXS1HkhFz+/p6D L0obIvnUqtpRVyJyh1qapzMRQRXq4ubXI/CcGyQbmCBbzBkUy78v+z/whnhM0r/7 j9yviks73AVWkP+WLd6v3tq6C00IFcwd/JZF9E8QGtbbIvNJltw7v2mPHl9hiN3w khSH7asECzh4rluEhihF1RAqybxeqqtwsdsZLAyCvhY27NQF+tsS9U3FDJXX0gn1 71DPr9bdMXznecRru8OisUaE8abyD4JlcWq7kNcw94NZoDKj0jljVKtHJlJO5s8= =eP9o -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --TVqle0GMKRf7OxwCq5whJ0CgU3iw7iVM1-- From nobody Fri Oct 27 11:08:33 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: reap@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: reap@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A369413F088; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 11:08:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2TUXVOjBGOAu; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 11:08:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pg0-x236.google.com (mail-pg0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C34E913F3AC; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 11:08:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg0-x236.google.com with SMTP id y5so5856124pgq.7; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 11:08:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=mfLuGKQymS9Pve+iWDqSwLU/XAqvuuWAL12NUZs79G0=; b=it3+p7qq+tMWWu24Y/lXtbqNbyWlsYlhks9/BN45T40MjVbPzIMmJkvWIk1z5bYoNW Pk2oPLbxaQzIAbQO5UpuN0nzm30jZtiyN4hqCKAxgWBo+LlD6ZyCvUgTIXSrv0YM7K2H Q4TmmQjf3CMgtM+qil7CmS2yc7fGoelopfXTielJFDnLhOGKunckQkNWwfwSAPQyasxQ T/Rju/CEMTzSra4GAwhwvE9MN46hSI9FJx5QQixPJIR/9q6heMa231DHCsrPqUqwVUah xlwgKhDlMK4VOwQOTgJf1L4CQpYcQ+KMrGPMQzy/5pli4w+U1RQ0tefYNr7JncHBZ7i5 Sipg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=mfLuGKQymS9Pve+iWDqSwLU/XAqvuuWAL12NUZs79G0=; b=OkgBrotfqyVANY+5tTTf+0bluDN17DAfwJktDfvHNcWPaaJzrB0OugXrYCW1YJ3Xgi f979Y0OMzrWCGhAiF1gtj/Pl6l0Loi87q/YUzXvEB74H/F5z8MKK7PunIMf1lGgOXzA5 cRrVHbJnQ5ojhSPjICVRBqCMRSBwI7f6ryzL9kio69mz3klliuYYmmTfa9fxR3ee+hgg E+dMjWv+CjyTjGKAFqNDN0NWDgLpHox1RXGmORT/uQEOcwVk6PEgdUKerW5sfKpufWWs of1HNPTiwLC0g3zT3KsVtc/WNBm0GpgVH0HxTW9rORep+fY1Kwdv4bEBk9PCUdum2vqS zG9Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaWxgmprggTPlozZBGTQlZv1FI1m64lC3bEWW+K5uYOM7mYk+TMM POawfna2VqM5HAprZjTWcBh0nFpFsAVcZE1FpBk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+TJw88MYEwrb3/WH/vr73KxRatVu52bcF93PJKkDVnO9VaeD8ryS0f2nffXeiafHytAsHNTuM9vL92znxUh9os= X-Received: by 10.98.201.87 with SMTP id k84mr1225147pfg.109.1509127709345; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 11:08:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.186.194 with HTTP; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 11:07:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <3dbe94b9-4b2d-1479-8433-8b040cb1cfba@ericsson.com> <6b3dcad6-f00c-1fb9-4df6-19f3dc744371@ericsson.com> <112200E8-0E1D-4A38-800D-54892BFF67F6@gmail.com> From: Kathleen Moriarty Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 14:07:48 -0400 Message-ID: To: Eliot Lear Cc: Bernard Aboba , reap@ietf.org, Mohit Sethi , "saag@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Reap] [saag] PSA: New list for discussing EAP related methods X-BeenThere: reap@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "REAP \(RENEW\) EAP" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 18:08:32 -0000 EKR and I chatted and agree using EMU is the best go forward plan. Thank you for raising the issue that slipped by us. Best regards, Kathleen On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 7:55 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: > Kathleen, > > So the plan is to close reap and use emu? > > Eliot > > > On 10/27/17 3:43 AM, Kathleen Moriarty wrote: > > That sounds like the best plan. > > Thank you, > Kathleen > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Oct 26, 2017, at 9:16 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote: > > Yes, the EMU WG list has been used for discussion of EAP methods since the > WG closed. > > That list is a better venue for discussion of EAP methods than a new REAP > list, so as to ensure that proper attention is paid to backward > compatibility, IPR, security properties and other critical aspects of EAP > method design. > > After all, we are talking about a protocol that is 20+ years old that is > implemented on billions of devices, many of which utilize open-source. > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Kathleen Moriarty > wrote: >> >> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Mohit Sethi >> wrote: >> > Hi Bernard, >> > >> > The EAP-TLS 1.3 document is a very rough drafty version that was >> > submitted >> > before the cut-off for the last IETF. As you rightly point out, it has >> > the >> > skeleton and a lot of material from RFC5216, and still many important >> > details are missing. >> > >> > The purpose of this list is to exactly receive these kind of comments. >> > Should RFC5216 be updated or obsoleted by this draft. And it would be >> > great >> > if we can have your contributions to the document. We will definitely >> > add an >> > acknowledgement section and contact the authors of RFC5216 to see if >> > they >> > can contribute and comment. We plan to have more EAP related >> > contributions >> > in the near future. We discussed this with the Security ADs and thought >> > that >> > a separate list would be appropriate to get feedback/criticism and >> > contributions from the folks interested. >> >> I'm sorry, I didn't realize that a revision of 5216 was involved and >> that the authors were not notified at the onset as is normal practice >> in case they want to continue as authors. Thank you for spotting this >> issue Bernard. >> >> Is there an existing list that should be used? Is there adequate >> overlap in objectives and personnel? >> >> Thank you, >> Kathleen >> >> > >> > --Mohit >> > >> > >> > On 10/26/2017 06:51 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote: >> > >> > There are existing functioning IETF mailing lists relating to EAP. >> > >> > Why are you starting yet another one? >> > >> > From what I can tell, the EAP-TLS 1.3 draft is merely a copy of RFC 5216 >> > (with no acknowledgement to the original authors) stating that EAP-TLS >> > implementations must support TLS 1.3. >> > >> > This is ridiculous because there are 1+ Billion existing implementations >> > out >> > there that >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 6:02 AM, Mohit Sethi >> > >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> We have started a mailing list for discussing new EAP related work that >> >> currently has no obvious home. The mailing list is called REAP (Renew >> >> EAP) >> >> reap@ietf.org and you can subscribe here: >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/reap >> >> >> >> Recently several new EAP methods have been proposed. These include for >> >> example: >> >> >> >> EAP-TLS 1.3: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mattsson-eap-tls13-00 >> >> >> >> EAP-NOOB: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aura-eap-noob-02 >> >> >> >> EAP-SASL: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vanrein-eap-sasl-00 >> >> >> >> The list serves as a venue for discussion of these and other EAP >> >> related >> >> drafts that will be submitted in the near future. As courtesy, we will >> >> post >> >> any new draft to SAAG, but we plan to continue the discussion only on >> >> the >> >> REAP mailing list. We have also asked for a short presentation slot >> >> during >> >> SECDISPATCH at IETF 100 in Singapore. >> >> >> >> Comments, early feedback, and discussion on existing or new work is >> >> more >> >> than welcome. >> >> >> >> --Mohit >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> saag mailing list >> >> saag@ietf.org >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > saag mailing list >> > saag@ietf.org >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > saag mailing list >> > saag@ietf.org >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Best regards, >> Kathleen > > > > > _______________________________________________ > saag mailing list > saag@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag > > -- Best regards, Kathleen From nobody Sat Oct 28 02:01:05 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: reap@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: reap@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14B6013AB36; Sat, 28 Oct 2017 02:01:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QVX38joHEYBv; Sat, 28 Oct 2017 02:01:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vk0-x22a.google.com (mail-vk0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 194CD1395ED; Sat, 28 Oct 2017 02:01:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vk0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id h142so2076805vkf.7; Sat, 28 Oct 2017 02:01:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=GQPVS9z3WKVynxCRTm4otDRR2eRsFMWgbwy4vWA7o8U=; b=D1fFb0sGFJ10CLihI+Q1ybwCS9XDhQmD1oq6gEY2rPzdSct7+HHY2wKpMsrd6u4M7t PmNY29JObWUO5GtmwKNLBeD9E8wIkb6Rfn/5YbrbGXfQi6domI3Z+ESqkR4DTGySxJtO aiEeCYCR7Szpe+k3wAE9vKEiCnhEQeUvMYJ0SltmjFGQwbuOIzIk0lF2fHvHPgFpGbI4 dYlOkPa91iDM3MEgp289emR/ps/Q/bAY0m75kc6MeqSGAetOkxEFad03TeLJ7+gMwkA4 GwbaLojGMivWBwqrLQR+pwhEYCH9+iHmLusgYUazGlj413od2lJJbVJDSsFQZ2soPUIp jDQw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=GQPVS9z3WKVynxCRTm4otDRR2eRsFMWgbwy4vWA7o8U=; b=nmd/WV9ExnpiJSnZQxEd9/7RuGoDZyOh94MGvM8l+vD3eHG85Nwn7g2CmZNZ1eEGUk Y2HhliwX/iJkMWpHXw8NOpKPuTzb2KABKjrQjlso3lbY9vp5r0VF5TAiTS2LsfKxpS2j Or2SAr+7EGrYNgNDvp5Glt0NJtGsEoyUOrcyIO1vQW4rV3kret9K0lsv/QzVKu2oMAU/ 1G6tKXZIwqWeUz9KaDYqnssXi256TQo/VhyysgPTfa0xO1TWCbcQMU8LJtUldswF60ay R9vasHE60sQE2nwxPBofX5MGyhwRukOjl784BqWmBIgsX7umb9uoDgPwX3bzGfDWgRlB DlAw== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaV05aDA1yvcFf0I6rYssbJUDSFK5p5q8xPWQt11j8LchegiTHnl PsysD18ndxkDS+Fu24ZTy9kEFXMEyK/57JpCs/E= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+SSWnDZeBWfM97aTgh189/7IMuUbtdCb7dnDOVk80GNXgL6R1cMAt7pxGeJu5TaOBsJj9YfQPQbFGBHuQCaNnc= X-Received: by 10.31.70.133 with SMTP id t127mr2691863vka.100.1509181260169; Sat, 28 Oct 2017 02:01:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.176.84.143 with HTTP; Sat, 28 Oct 2017 02:00:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <3dbe94b9-4b2d-1479-8433-8b040cb1cfba@ericsson.com> <6b3dcad6-f00c-1fb9-4df6-19f3dc744371@ericsson.com> From: Zhen Cao Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2017 17:00:59 +0800 Message-ID: To: Bernard Aboba Cc: Kathleen Moriarty , reap@ietf.org, Mohit Sethi , "saag@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Reap] [saag] PSA: New list for discussing EAP related methods X-BeenThere: reap@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "REAP \(RENEW\) EAP" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2017 09:01:03 -0000 Thanks Bernard for pointing out this, at least new to me. I check the emu wg conclusion email, not formally stating that emu will be the only place for eap-related discussion. The emu list has been quite silent since the wg conclusion, less than 20 messages for three years. There were occasionally some drafts posted for comments, but not any follow-up responses. This leaves an impression that either the list members are not interested in new topics or the emu list is not actually adequately subscribed (who has the ground truth?). I believe this is not only a motive for Mohit and I to request a new mailing list, but may also confuse upcoming people who seek for a place to have discussion. Regards, -Zhen On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Bernard Aboba wrote: > Yes, the EMU WG list has been used for discussion of EAP methods since the > WG closed. > > That list is a better venue for discussion of EAP methods than a new REAP > list, so as to ensure that proper attention is paid to backward > compatibility, IPR, security properties and other critical aspects of EAP > method design. > > After all, we are talking about a protocol that is 20+ years old that is > implemented on billions of devices, many of which utilize open-source. > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Kathleen Moriarty > wrote: >> >> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Mohit Sethi >> wrote: >> > Hi Bernard, >> > >> > The EAP-TLS 1.3 document is a very rough drafty version that was >> > submitted >> > before the cut-off for the last IETF. As you rightly point out, it has >> > the >> > skeleton and a lot of material from RFC5216, and still many important >> > details are missing. >> > >> > The purpose of this list is to exactly receive these kind of comments. >> > Should RFC5216 be updated or obsoleted by this draft. And it would be >> > great >> > if we can have your contributions to the document. We will definitely >> > add an >> > acknowledgement section and contact the authors of RFC5216 to see if >> > they >> > can contribute and comment. We plan to have more EAP related >> > contributions >> > in the near future. We discussed this with the Security ADs and thought >> > that >> > a separate list would be appropriate to get feedback/criticism and >> > contributions from the folks interested. >> >> I'm sorry, I didn't realize that a revision of 5216 was involved and >> that the authors were not notified at the onset as is normal practice >> in case they want to continue as authors. Thank you for spotting this >> issue Bernard. >> >> Is there an existing list that should be used? Is there adequate >> overlap in objectives and personnel? >> >> Thank you, >> Kathleen >> >> > >> > --Mohit >> > >> > >> > On 10/26/2017 06:51 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote: >> > >> > There are existing functioning IETF mailing lists relating to EAP. >> > >> > Why are you starting yet another one? >> > >> > From what I can tell, the EAP-TLS 1.3 draft is merely a copy of RFC 5216 >> > (with no acknowledgement to the original authors) stating that EAP-TLS >> > implementations must support TLS 1.3. >> > >> > This is ridiculous because there are 1+ Billion existing implementations >> > out >> > there that >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 6:02 AM, Mohit Sethi >> > >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> We have started a mailing list for discussing new EAP related work that >> >> currently has no obvious home. The mailing list is called REAP (Renew >> >> EAP) >> >> reap@ietf.org and you can subscribe here: >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/reap >> >> >> >> Recently several new EAP methods have been proposed. These include for >> >> example: >> >> >> >> EAP-TLS 1.3: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mattsson-eap-tls13-00 >> >> >> >> EAP-NOOB: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aura-eap-noob-02 >> >> >> >> EAP-SASL: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vanrein-eap-sasl-00 >> >> >> >> The list serves as a venue for discussion of these and other EAP >> >> related >> >> drafts that will be submitted in the near future. As courtesy, we will >> >> post >> >> any new draft to SAAG, but we plan to continue the discussion only on >> >> the >> >> REAP mailing list. We have also asked for a short presentation slot >> >> during >> >> SECDISPATCH at IETF 100 in Singapore. >> >> >> >> Comments, early feedback, and discussion on existing or new work is >> >> more >> >> than welcome. >> >> >> >> --Mohit >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> saag mailing list >> >> saag@ietf.org >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > saag mailing list >> > saag@ietf.org >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > saag mailing list >> > saag@ietf.org >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Best regards, >> Kathleen > > > > _______________________________________________ > saag mailing list > saag@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag > From nobody Sat Oct 28 12:16:51 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: reap@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: reap@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D151B13FD3A; Sat, 28 Oct 2017 12:16:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rZjB1skyPNpu; Sat, 28 Oct 2017 12:16:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pf0-x22e.google.com (mail-pf0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7EF091380DB; Sat, 28 Oct 2017 12:16:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id x7so7457761pfa.1; Sat, 28 Oct 2017 12:16:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=FKa29m46l6F9SHCIM33T1NIKaZE60XVhkZzlk8SXVa8=; b=tdxm49HAy2ZiyITjarl9N5lSDp32ybY9lMvuY2RcRtRhdcmx03QMWKLRNPpJGe61Tt X0aA3yQ2/zaKEBay7/t6r90zoG0SVe4R+LIRHOOcKc8necT/PpRmJ+DhRzy7WHhko/+2 0VSZBkMWSvAyVmyOFkF8NnbZIt646GP9VGffhcjOJhn2OtGKO3/TpMKLEaTXwOyaLJzc YWph9KgyRkipPYqSdHIQhB3IhRilODY3BNuVvUPoyL24TE/1YS42GCJvSBGrXOqBwfYT jz1JFlgbPDrteZ5eVrWghGUmcM+wtSg3+iwf5POXFzeKZRnTJtPIDohY5JpouC96buh/ D8DQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=FKa29m46l6F9SHCIM33T1NIKaZE60XVhkZzlk8SXVa8=; b=QcrI//KlQ53op0VplsK2PnGZ8Fgonq3CR1UjzDFLqJxgPgpxHIN6As3KKPlPeek5tY CmI1Q/CyX/cHl5c2R8RV4Y37X+Q5J58F3vdWmzT8XLK7JXmiAB/eB0HoEWJc1Lg3yhi2 Wqt/d9tyJ9KNP6agk5pMhHO1Hy8kDsgKckClbGbBfWXX5r5mWL4anpxJDi85YQdvyzWN DNYHFc+JeReOJmjvdOt3n8Uru5iZ/Gw+XbRl+zzVQoLJrO6IYOO9jsCdpA4hywcxC1kX FutBBZapp8bMwk3PpVPL8DLjL3zenTG/4hAVH5kgYCpsJ5ge3i7PhId0F8jrFn8bE7M1 OwHw== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaW1sOPGjOSngI4btCyxK+aqCg26JUo4kxwriiMNqsHWMtP1kaCs rCaPMkKmg21gXBkw4hUISk1gBWNY X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+T9romOCHyDIbdixrMSPJWl81KC+KynK8rZr4wkPKXrR6uuSVT+f5W3qTf5Lu4c7McMYYTglg== X-Received: by 10.98.161.24 with SMTP id b24mr4211025pff.297.1509218206518; Sat, 28 Oct 2017 12:16:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (c-24-17-217-136.hsd1.wa.comcast.net. [24.17.217.136]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 76sm21088014pfq.4.2017.10.28.12.16.45 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 28 Oct 2017 12:16:45 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) From: Bernard Aboba X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (15A432) In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2017 12:16:44 -0700 Cc: Kathleen Moriarty , reap@ietf.org, Mohit Sethi , "saag@ietf.org" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <3dbe94b9-4b2d-1479-8433-8b040cb1cfba@ericsson.com> <6b3dcad6-f00c-1fb9-4df6-19f3dc744371@ericsson.com> To: Zhen Cao Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Reap] [saag] PSA: New list for discussing EAP related methods X-BeenThere: reap@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "REAP \(RENEW\) EAP" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2017 19:16:50 -0000 The IANA EAP page lists the policies for EAP code point allocations and poin= ts to RFC 3748 as the document relevant to method type allocations. RFC 3748 Section 6 describes the EAP method type registration and review pro= cess, requiring method reviews to be posted to a designated list. Originally= the EAP mailing list was designated, and then EMU was subsequently designat= ed as the successor list.=20 > On Oct 28, 2017, at 2:00 AM, Zhen Cao wrote: >=20 > Thanks Bernard for pointing out this, at least new to me. I check the > emu wg conclusion email, not formally stating that emu will be the > only place for eap-related discussion. >=20 > The emu list has been quite silent since the wg conclusion, less than > 20 messages for three years. There were occasionally some drafts > posted for comments, but not any follow-up responses. This leaves an > impression that either the list members are not interested in new > topics or the emu list is not actually adequately subscribed (who has > the ground truth?). I believe this is not only a motive for Mohit > and I to request a new mailing list, but may also confuse upcoming > people who seek for a place to have discussion. >=20 > Regards, > -Zhen >> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Bernard Aboba w= rote: >> Yes, the EMU WG list has been used for discussion of EAP methods since t= he >> WG closed. >>=20 >> That list is a better venue for discussion of EAP methods than a new REA= P >> list, so as to ensure that proper attention is paid to backward >> compatibility, IPR, security properties and other critical aspects of EAP= >> method design. >>=20 >> After all, we are talking about a protocol that is 20+ years old that is >> implemented on billions of devices, many of which utilize open-source. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Kathleen Moriarty >> wrote: >>>=20 >>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Mohit Sethi >>> wrote: >>>> Hi Bernard, >>>>=20 >>>> The EAP-TLS 1.3 document is a very rough drafty version that was >>>> submitted >>>> before the cut-off for the last IETF. As you rightly point out, it has >>>> the >>>> skeleton and a lot of material from RFC5216, and still many important >>>> details are missing. >>>>=20 >>>> The purpose of this list is to exactly receive these kind of comments. >>>> Should RFC5216 be updated or obsoleted by this draft. And it would be >>>> great >>>> if we can have your contributions to the document. We will definitely >>>> add an >>>> acknowledgement section and contact the authors of RFC5216 to see if >>>> they >>>> can contribute and comment. We plan to have more EAP related >>>> contributions >>>> in the near future. We discussed this with the Security ADs and thought= >>>> that >>>> a separate list would be appropriate to get feedback/criticism and >>>> contributions from the folks interested. >>>=20 >>> I'm sorry, I didn't realize that a revision of 5216 was involved and >>> that the authors were not notified at the onset as is normal practice >>> in case they want to continue as authors. Thank you for spotting this >>> issue Bernard. >>>=20 >>> Is there an existing list that should be used? Is there adequate >>> overlap in objectives and personnel? >>>=20 >>> Thank you, >>> Kathleen >>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> --Mohit >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> On 10/26/2017 06:51 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> There are existing functioning IETF mailing lists relating to EAP. >>>>=20 >>>> Why are you starting yet another one? >>>>=20 >>>> =46rom what I can tell, the EAP-TLS 1.3 draft is merely a copy of RFC 5= 216 >>>> (with no acknowledgement to the original authors) stating that EAP-TLS >>>> implementations must support TLS 1.3. >>>>=20 >>>> This is ridiculous because there are 1+ Billion existing implementation= s >>>> out >>>> there that >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 6:02 AM, Mohit Sethi >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>> Dear all, >>>>>=20 >>>>> We have started a mailing list for discussing new EAP related work tha= t >>>>> currently has no obvious home. The mailing list is called REAP (Renew >>>>> EAP) >>>>> reap@ietf.org and you can subscribe here: >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/reap >>>>>=20 >>>>> Recently several new EAP methods have been proposed. These include for= >>>>> example: >>>>>=20 >>>>> EAP-TLS 1.3: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mattsson-eap-tls13-00 >>>>>=20 >>>>> EAP-NOOB: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aura-eap-noob-02 >>>>>=20 >>>>> EAP-SASL: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vanrein-eap-sasl-00 >>>>>=20 >>>>> The list serves as a venue for discussion of these and other EAP >>>>> related >>>>> drafts that will be submitted in the near future. As courtesy, we will= >>>>> post >>>>> any new draft to SAAG, but we plan to continue the discussion only on >>>>> the >>>>> REAP mailing list. We have also asked for a short presentation slot >>>>> during >>>>> SECDISPATCH at IETF 100 in Singapore. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Comments, early feedback, and discussion on existing or new work is >>>>> more >>>>> than welcome. >>>>>=20 >>>>> --Mohit >>>>>=20 >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> saag mailing list >>>>> saag@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> saag mailing list >>>> saag@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> saag mailing list >>>> saag@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> -- >>>=20 >>> Best regards, >>> Kathleen >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> saag mailing list >> saag@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag >>=20 From nobody Sun Oct 29 10:46:43 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: reap@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: reap@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 242CE1388A9; Sun, 29 Oct 2017 10:46:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.221 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qvHtfVXJpBVz; Sun, 29 Oct 2017 10:46:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sessmg22.ericsson.net (sessmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.58]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53E4F1389AC; Sun, 29 Oct 2017 10:46:30 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3a-de7ff70000006897-a6-59f613f47be4 Received: from ESESSHC017.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.69]) by sessmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 1A.5D.26775.4F316F95; Sun, 29 Oct 2017 18:46:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from nomadiclab.fi.eu.ericsson.se (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.71) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.352.0; Sun, 29 Oct 2017 18:46:27 +0100 Received: from nomadiclab.fi.eu.ericsson.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nomadiclab.fi.eu.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81E9D4EE5E; Sun, 29 Oct 2017 19:48:33 +0200 (EET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nomadiclab.fi.eu.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC5514E689; Sun, 29 Oct 2017 19:48:32 +0200 (EET) To: Bernard Aboba , Zhen Cao CC: , Kathleen Moriarty , Mohit Sethi , "saag@ietf.org" References: <3dbe94b9-4b2d-1479-8433-8b040cb1cfba@ericsson.com> <6b3dcad6-f00c-1fb9-4df6-19f3dc744371@ericsson.com> From: Mohit Sethi Message-ID: <0f175e1a-6bed-7fd1-b44f-04ef2acc694e@ericsson.com> Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 19:46:26 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmpkkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZGbHdVfeL8LdIg0+b1C027PvPbNGwM9/i 3MrjLBZT+juZLKbv/cPowOqxc9Zddo8lS34yBTBFcdmkpOZklqUW6dslcGWc7uMv2G1aceD3 f5YGxivaXYycHBICJhLvjjezdTFycQgJHGaUeDj/KiuEs4NRou/VWyhnI6PEx64TLBDOAkaJ H0dvs4H0Cwt4Sxz/P4cFxBYR8JNYfHUuK4jNLDCNUaJtaxpEwxFmiZ1X5rCDJNgE9CQ6zx1n BrF5BewlXn27AWazCKhKvLqyAswWFYiQeN78nhWiRlDi5MwnYAs4BWwlbl7/yAaxwEJi5vzz jBC2vMT2t3OYIWxxiVtP5jNBPKcmcfXcJrC4kIC6xNaOA4wTGEVmIRk7C8moWUhGzUIyagEj yypG0eLU4uLcdCMjvdSizOTi4vw8vbzUkk2MwIg5uOW31Q7Gg88dDzEKcDAq8fAu5v4WKcSa WFZcmXuIUYKDWUmEt/rZ10gh3pTEyqrUovz4otKc1OJDjNIcLErivA77LkQICaQnlqRmp6YW pBbBZJk4OKUaGB0uqUR1l/EnqMiu3OpnuE790fwP/3JOKqtc6Qrve878RXK33ax0taOWf8J9 ToWutrFIFdUVqvyiuXbCW+c7oZ93LN1md/3pvFz2W4rcs6YzvLAsb0ut3nvwiMSJxKui3mvv pe13cLt597Hw1NvuuUl1Hi+2L3z3N/iq9RNWd5Z5qWHHNr4XmqbEUpyRaKjFXFScCAAe8Pfk lAIAAA== Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Reap] [saag] PSA: New list for discussing EAP related methods X-BeenThere: reap@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "REAP \(RENEW\) EAP" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 17:46:37 -0000 Hi Bernard, Thanks for pointing this out. Somehow this did not come up earlier when Zhen and I discussed with the Security ADs. I am happy to keep the discussion on EMU. I think our goals are ultimately the same: we want the interested people to get engaged in the new work and make sure that there is enough review from experts. We let the security ADs decide on what to do with REAP list. It might be better to shut it down now when there hasn't been much discussion. We would also encourage others who are not on EMU to join the list to stay updated. --Mohit On 10/28/2017 10:16 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote: > The IANA EAP page lists the policies for EAP code point allocations and points to RFC 3748 as the document relevant to method type allocations. > > RFC 3748 Section 6 describes the EAP method type registration and review process, requiring method reviews to be posted to a designated list. Originally the EAP mailing list was designated, and then EMU was subsequently designated as the successor list. > >> On Oct 28, 2017, at 2:00 AM, Zhen Cao wrote: >> >> Thanks Bernard for pointing out this, at least new to me. I check the >> emu wg conclusion email, not formally stating that emu will be the >> only place for eap-related discussion. >> >> The emu list has been quite silent since the wg conclusion, less than >> 20 messages for three years. There were occasionally some drafts >> posted for comments, but not any follow-up responses. This leaves an >> impression that either the list members are not interested in new >> topics or the emu list is not actually adequately subscribed (who has >> the ground truth?). I believe this is not only a motive for Mohit >> and I to request a new mailing list, but may also confuse upcoming >> people who seek for a place to have discussion. >> >> Regards, >> -Zhen >>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Bernard Aboba wrote: >>> Yes, the EMU WG list has been used for discussion of EAP methods since the >>> WG closed. >>> >>> That list is a better venue for discussion of EAP methods than a new REAP >>> list, so as to ensure that proper attention is paid to backward >>> compatibility, IPR, security properties and other critical aspects of EAP >>> method design. >>> >>> After all, we are talking about a protocol that is 20+ years old that is >>> implemented on billions of devices, many of which utilize open-source. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Kathleen Moriarty >>> wrote: >>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Mohit Sethi >>>> wrote: >>>>> Hi Bernard, >>>>> >>>>> The EAP-TLS 1.3 document is a very rough drafty version that was >>>>> submitted >>>>> before the cut-off for the last IETF. As you rightly point out, it has >>>>> the >>>>> skeleton and a lot of material from RFC5216, and still many important >>>>> details are missing. >>>>> >>>>> The purpose of this list is to exactly receive these kind of comments. >>>>> Should RFC5216 be updated or obsoleted by this draft. And it would be >>>>> great >>>>> if we can have your contributions to the document. We will definitely >>>>> add an >>>>> acknowledgement section and contact the authors of RFC5216 to see if >>>>> they >>>>> can contribute and comment. We plan to have more EAP related >>>>> contributions >>>>> in the near future. We discussed this with the Security ADs and thought >>>>> that >>>>> a separate list would be appropriate to get feedback/criticism and >>>>> contributions from the folks interested. >>>> I'm sorry, I didn't realize that a revision of 5216 was involved and >>>> that the authors were not notified at the onset as is normal practice >>>> in case they want to continue as authors. Thank you for spotting this >>>> issue Bernard. >>>> >>>> Is there an existing list that should be used? Is there adequate >>>> overlap in objectives and personnel? >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> Kathleen >>>> >>>>> --Mohit >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 10/26/2017 06:51 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote: >>>>> >>>>> There are existing functioning IETF mailing lists relating to EAP. >>>>> >>>>> Why are you starting yet another one? >>>>> >>>>> From what I can tell, the EAP-TLS 1.3 draft is merely a copy of RFC 5216 >>>>> (with no acknowledgement to the original authors) stating that EAP-TLS >>>>> implementations must support TLS 1.3. >>>>> >>>>> This is ridiculous because there are 1+ Billion existing implementations >>>>> out >>>>> there that >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 6:02 AM, Mohit Sethi >>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>> We have started a mailing list for discussing new EAP related work that >>>>>> currently has no obvious home. The mailing list is called REAP (Renew >>>>>> EAP) >>>>>> reap@ietf.org and you can subscribe here: >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/reap >>>>>> >>>>>> Recently several new EAP methods have been proposed. These include for >>>>>> example: >>>>>> >>>>>> EAP-TLS 1.3: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mattsson-eap-tls13-00 >>>>>> >>>>>> EAP-NOOB: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aura-eap-noob-02 >>>>>> >>>>>> EAP-SASL: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vanrein-eap-sasl-00 >>>>>> >>>>>> The list serves as a venue for discussion of these and other EAP >>>>>> related >>>>>> drafts that will be submitted in the near future. As courtesy, we will >>>>>> post >>>>>> any new draft to SAAG, but we plan to continue the discussion only on >>>>>> the >>>>>> REAP mailing list. We have also asked for a short presentation slot >>>>>> during >>>>>> SECDISPATCH at IETF 100 in Singapore. >>>>>> >>>>>> Comments, early feedback, and discussion on existing or new work is >>>>>> more >>>>>> than welcome. >>>>>> >>>>>> --Mohit >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> saag mailing list >>>>>> saag@ietf.org >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> saag mailing list >>>>> saag@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> saag mailing list >>>>> saag@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Kathleen >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> saag mailing list >>> saag@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag >>> > _______________________________________________ > REAP mailing list > REAP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/reap