Subject: [Emu] Next Steps on Passwd-based EAP Methods

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 10:24:35 +0200

Hi all,

before we spend more time considering EAP tunneling methods like PEAP 
and TTLS I would like to hear the opinion of our ADs on this subject.
So far, the working assumption was that EAP methods that tunnel EAP are 
outside the scope of the working group. These statements were also 
repeated during the IETF#68 EMU WG meeting by our ADs.

We seem to change the assumptions on the fly.

Ciao
Hannes

_______________________________________________
Emu mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 11:42:43 +0200

I also need to say that at the IETF#68 EMU WG meeting the discussions in 
the room where pretty positive for moving forward with a simple 
password-based EAP method using TLS without another EAP encapsulation on 
top of TLS. I also got the impression after the session that the people 
in the room where happy with the tentative decisions we made. I had a 
clear picture in mind how to move forward with the work on this topic.

I only recall a single person in the room that raised some concerns.

Ciao
Hannes

PS: To clarify my position: I also have no problem with working on 
TTLSv1 (as I expressed on the DT mailing list). This would, however, 
require the TLS working group to work on the TLS Inner Application, 
which I also think is useful. This approach was, however, ruled out by 
the ADs.

Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> So far, the working assumption was that EAP methods that tunnel EAP 
> are outside the scope of the working group. These statements were also

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 08:52:14 -0400

>>>>> "Hannes" == Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]> writes:

    Hannes> Hi all, before we spend more time considering EAP
    Hannes> tunneling methods like PEAP and TTLS I would like to hear
    Hannes> the opinion of our ADs on this subject.  So far, the
    Hannes> working assumption was that EAP methods that tunnel EAP
    Hannes> are outside the scope of the working group. These
    Hannes> statements were also repeated during the IETF#68 EMU WG
    Hannes> meeting by our ADs.

I at least don't recall objecting to a tunnel method.  If you're going
to do a tunnel method you do need cryptographic binding when tunneling
something that generates a key.

Bernard objected rather strongly to a tunneled method.

Note that I am not saying you should go in the direction of a tunneled
method; a simple password over tls method is a fine approach.  I just
don't recall me making an AD level objection to tunnels.

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 11:40:01 -0400

>>>>> "Tschofenig," == Tschofenig, Hannes <[email-masked]> writes:

    Tschofenig,> Hi Sam,
    >>  I at least don't recall objecting to a tunnel method.  If
    >> you're going to do a tunnel method you do need cryptographic
    >> binding when tunneling something that generates a key.

    Tschofenig,> I recall that you rejected the TTLS approach where we
    Tschofenig,> would have to add EAP support into TLS.  I am also
    Tschofenig,> happy to hear that you like providing EAP support in
    Tschofenig,> TLS.

Yes, I reject that approach to tunnelsing.  But you could for example
use the TLS application record protocol to tunnel EAP.

---

From: "Stephen Hanna" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 11:45:55 -0400

FYI, EAP-TTLSv0 does not require any changes to the TLS handshake.
Only EAP-TTLSv1 does.

Thanks,

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Hartman [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 11:40 AM
To: Tschofenig, Hannes
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: AW: [Emu] Re: Next Steps on Passwd-based EAP Methods

    Tschofenig,> Hi Sam,

---

From: "Tschofenig, Hannes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 15:52:16 +0200

Hi Sam, 

> something that generates a key.

I recall that you rejected the TTLS approach where we would have to add
EAP support into TLS. 
I am also happy to hear that you like providing EAP support in TLS. 

> Bernard objected rather strongly to a tunneled method.

I recall that as well. Now, he is in favor of it. 

> method; a simple password over tls method is a fine approach. 

For me as well. 

> I just

I personally don't care which approach we pick as long as we stick with
the same assumptions until the work is finished. For example, very early
we said that this password based EAP method is not SRP-like work. I
could imagine that someone suggests to reconsider that From [email-masked] Tue Apr 03 12:33:13 2007
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: AW: [Emu] Re: Next Steps on Passwd-based EAP Methods
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 15:52:16 +0200
From: "Tschofenig, Hannes" <[email-masked]>
To: "Sam Hartman" <[email-masked]>,
	"Hannes Tschofenig" <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]

Hi Sam, 

> something that generates a key.

I recall that you rejected the TTLS approach where we would have to add
EAP support into TLS. 
I am also happy to hear that you like providing EAP support in TLS. 

> Bernard objected rather strongly to a tunneled method.

I recall that as well. Now, he is in favor of it. 

> method; a simple password over tls method is a fine approach. 

For me as well. 

> I just

I personally don't care which approach we pick as long as we stick with
the same assumptions until the work is finished. For example, very early
we said that this password based EAP method is not SRP-like work. I
could imagine that someone suggests to reconsider that decision. 

The rules are simple: 
Different assumptions for the design => Different protocols as output. 
Changing the assumptions periodically => Takes longer to complete the
work

Ciao
Hannes

---

From: "Tschofenig, Hannes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 17:43:48 +0200

During the meeting the group said that they want to have a password-based only approach (no tunneled EAP support). Even CHAP etc. was left for future work, if ever done. For this purpose PAP over TLS + room for extensibility is just good enough.

Ciao
Hannes

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: ext Sam Hartman [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 3. April 2007 17:40
> An: Tschofenig, Hannes
> Cc: Hannes Tschofenig; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Betreff: Re: AW: [Emu] Re: Next Steps on Passwd-based EAP Methods
> 
>     Hannes> meeting by our decision. 

The rules are simple: 

Ciao
Hannes

---

From: "Tschofenig, Hannes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 17:43:48 +0200

Ciao
Hannes

ADs.

---

From: Ryan Hurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 09:24:01 -0700

Thanks Steve, that was my understanding also.

Is it also true that there are no implementations of TTLSv1?

Ryan 

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Hanna [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 8:46 AM
To: Sam Hartman; Tschofenig, Hannes
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: AW: [Emu] Re: Next Steps on Passwd-based EAP Methods

Thanks,

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Hartman [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 11:40 AM
To: Tschofenig, Hannes
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: AW: [Emu] Re: Next Steps on Passwd-based EAP Methods

    Tschofenig,> Hi Sam,

---

From: "Bernard Aboba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 12:21:20 -0700

>During the meeting the group said that they want to have a password-based 
>only approach (no >tunneled EAP support). Even CHAP etc. was left for 
>future work, if ever done. For this purpose >PAP over TLS + room for 
>extensibility is just good enough.

FWIW, EAP-TTLSv0 does support non-EAP authentication as well as tunneling.  
This includes support for PAP, CHAP, MS-CHAP and MS-CHAPv2.