>> >> I think we could state this a bit better as something like: >> >> "In environments where EAP is used for applications authentication and >> network >> access authentication all EAP servers MUST understand channel bindings and >> require that application bindings MUST be present in application >> authentication and that application bindings MUST be absent in network >> authentication. All network access EAP peer implementations SHOULD support >> channel binding to explicitly identify the reason for authentication. Any >> new >> usage of EAP MUST support channel bindings to prevent confusion with network >> access usage. " > > That text is an improvement, and it's headed in the same direction as Sam's > comment - "application bindings MUST be present in application authentication" > is a "MUST use" requirement, not just a "MUST implement" requirement. > > OTOH, I'm not clear on what "application bindings" means, as that term's not > in the current draft. Specifically, I'm a bit unclear on "application > bindings > MUST be absent in network authentication" - does that mean that channel > binding must be absent, or that channel binding is optional, but if channel > binding is present, it MUST NOT be an "application binding", whatever that is? >
[Joe] Good points, the text can be more specific: "In environments where EAP is used for purposes other than network access authentication all EAP servers MUST enforce channel bindings. For application authentication, the EAP server MUST require that the correct EAP lower-layer attribute be present in the channel binding data. For network access authentication, the EAP server MUST require that if channel bindings are present they MUST contain the correct EAP lower-layer attribute. All network access EAP peer implementations SHOULD use channel bindings including the EAP lower-layer attribute to explicitly identify the reason for authentication. Any new usage of EAP MUST use channel bindings including the EAP lower-layer attribute to prevent confusion with network access usage. " Does this help? Thanks, Joe
