Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-emu-tls-eap-types-11
review-ietf-emu-tls-eap-types-11-secdir-lc-shore-2023-02-03-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-emu-tls-eap-types
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 13)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2023-02-01
Requested 2023-01-13
Authors Alan DeKok
I-D last updated 2023-06-27 (Latest revision 2023-02-16)
Completed reviews Secdir IETF Last Call review of -11 by Melinda Shore (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -10 by Thomas Fossati (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -11 by Jürgen Schönwälder (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -11 by Bob Halley (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Melinda Shore
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-emu-tls-eap-types by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/99P2m5Xh2EqTDw-D720FkG4CxVE
Reviewed revision 11 (document currently at 13)
Result Ready
Completed 2023-02-03
review-ietf-emu-tls-eap-types-11-secdir-lc-shore-2023-02-03-00
This document updates TLS-based EAP methods to use key derivation mechanisms
from TLS 1.3, along with other TLS 1.3-required updates.  It's clearly written
and I believe could be implemented from.  There are several very minor nits,
which I actually don't think need to be addressed but are mentioned here in the
interest of completeness.  Section 3.1 is a very nice piece of work, as is the
security considerations.

2.1 “The inclusion of the EAP type makes the derivation method specific.” 
“method-specific” or “specific to the method” might be clearer

2.2 “PAC” should probably be spelled out on its first use.  Also EMSK and other
initialisms
 “j’th inner methods” should be singular
“In TLS 1.3, the derivation of IMCK[j] used both a different label” should be
present tense (“uses”)

2.4 should probably use either MS-CHAP or MS-CHAPv1 consistently