Hi.
For the last couple of years, we've been believing that EAP and GSS
used the term channel bindings inconsistently. For those of us
dealing with both, it's been a bit annoying.
I've been thinking about EAP a lot lately. and have come to the
conclusion that actually the terms are used consistently.
I'd like to see if people agree with the following change to Nico's channel
binding draft:
old:
Also unfortunately there is a conflict with the Extensible
Authentication Protocol (EAP) [RFC3748] which uses "channel binding"
to refer to a facility that is subtly different from the one
described here. (It does not seem feasible to adopt new terminology
to avoid these problems now. The GSS-API, NFSv4 and other
communities have been using the terms "channel binding" and "channel
bindings" in these ways for a long time, sometimes with variations
such as "channel binding facility" and so on.)
new:
The Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) [RFC3748] includes two
facilities related to channel binding. The first, called channel
binding, is used to bind the lower-layer channel created between the
peer and the authenticator to the authentication performed using EAP.
Specific detials of this facility have not been specified, but it is
likely that this channel would use endpoint channel bindings carried
in the EAP method exchange. The endpoint channel bindings would be
defined for the specific lower layer. EAP also has a facility called
cryptographic binding, which is another instance of channel binding.
Cryptographic binding refers to binding the channel created by a
tunneling EAP method to an inner authentication performed within that
method. Cryptographic binding will likely use unique channel
bindings.
Do these changes make sense to people? Am I telling any lies or
conflating two architectures in a bad way?
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf