On Aug 21, 2023, at 10:40 AM, Heikki Vatiainen <h...@radiatorsoftware.com> 
wrote:
> 
> draft-ietf-emu-rfc7170bis-08 added the following paragraph to section 7.4.1. 
> "User Identity Protection and Verification":
> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-emu-rfc7170bis-07&url2=draft-ietf-emu-rfc7170bis-08&difftype=--html
> 
> Note that the Phase 2 data could simply be a Result TLV with value Success, 
> along with a Crypto-Binding TLV and Intermediate-Result TLV. This Phase 2 
> data serves as a protected success indication as discussed in [RFC9190] 
> Section 2.1.1
> 
> My suggestion is to remove Intermediate-Result TLV from the above paragraph.

  OK.

> First, section 3.5.5 "Protected Termination and Acknowledged Result 
> Indication" currently says:
> 
> A successful TEAP Phase 2 conversation MUST always end in a successful 
> Crypto-Binding TLV and Result TLV exchange. A TEAP server may initiate the 
> Crypto-Binding TLV and Result TLV exchange without initiating any EAP 
> conversation in TEAP Phase 2.  
>  ...
> The Crypto-Binding TLV and Intermediate-Result TLV MUST be included to 
> perform cryptographic binding after each successful authentication in a 
> sequence of one or more inner methods. 
>  
> The first part of the above quote says that Crypto-Binding and Result TLVs 
> are enough if there's no EAP conversation in phase 2. Based on the second 
> part of the quote, because there's no inner method, logic says that 
> Intermediate-Result TLV isn't needed.
> 
> Finally, testing against eapol_test from wpa_supplicant shows that this works:
>  Result-TLV (success)
>  Cryptobinding-TLV
> 
> where as this makes eapol_test trigger failure:
>  Intermediate-Result TLV (success)
>  Result-TLV (success)
>  Cryptobinding-TLV
> 
> To summarise. If the last paragraph of draft-12 section 7.4.1. "User Identity 
> Protection and Verification" is updated, it would make the text more 
> consistent with the other parts of the draft and allow EAP-TLS -like 
> behaviour to work with eapol_test (wpa_supplicant).

  That makes sense to me.  I'll update it.

  Alan DeKok.

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

Reply via email to