Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ace-wg-coap-eap-09

Request Review of draft-ietf-ace-wg-coap-eap
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2024-01-25
Requested 2024-01-11
Authors Rafael Marin-Lopez , Dan Garcia-Carrillo
I-D last updated 2024-01-23
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -09 by Deb Cooley (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -09 by Roni Even (diff)
Secdir Early review of -08 by Deb Cooley (diff)
Iotdir Early review of -08 by Eliot Lear (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Deb Cooley
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-ace-wg-coap-eap by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 09 (document currently at 10)
Result Has nits
Completed 2024-01-23
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
security area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat
these comments just like any other last call comments.

Document: draft-ietf-ace-wg-coap-eap-09
Reviewer: Deb Cooley
Review Date: 2024-01-23

The summary of the review is 'Has Nits'.

0.  All of my early review comments have been addressed.  TY

1.  Section 5.1, last paragraph:  The MSK can be assumed to be 'fresh key
material', but do all EAP methods yield 'strong cryptographic key' by Section
3.3 of RFC 5869?  If some EAP methods do not yield strong keys, then either the
KDF Extract should be used, or those methods should not be allowed.  (I did not
look this up, so telling me that you all checked is a fine answer)

2.  Section 5.2:  It would be useful to have an actual example of the info part
of the KDF. How is CS constructed - spaces, commas? Are there spaces between CS
and the string?