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