On Nov 14, 2018, at 9:04 AM, John Mattsson <john.matts...@ericsson.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I think the draft is now in quite good shape. It would be good to get some 
> reviews. 

  A quick review, mostly NITs:

   Weaknesses found in previous versions of TLS, as well as new
   requirements for security, privacy, and reduced latency has led to

  I think this should be "... have led to ..."

   As stated in [RFC5216], the TLS cipher suite shall not be used to
   protect application data.  This applies also for early application
   data.  When EAP-TLS is used with TLS 1.3, early application data
   SHALL NOT be used.

 I'm not sure what section of RFC5216 says that the application data isn't 
protected.  Perhaps this could be clarified?

  Section 2.1.3:

   .. higher.  The two paragraphs below replaces the corresponding

 "replace", not "replaces"

  Section 2.1.5:

   Including ContentType and ProtocolVersion a single TLS record may be
   up to 16387 octets in length.  Some EAP implementations and access
   networks may limit the number of EAP packet exchanges that can be
   handled.  To avoid fragmentation, it is RECOMMENDED to keep the sizes
   of client, server, and trust anchor certificates small and the length
   of the certificate chains short.

  The subsequent text talks about modifying the certificate formats (ECC vs 
RSA) in order to shrink the certs.  It may be useful here to discuss other 
methods, too.

  e.g. adding full addresses, contact information, etc. into every certificate 
can increase the cert sizes by hundreds of bytes.  Admins should investigate 
ways to identify certificates (especially intermediate ones) via something 
*other* than using the certificate as a database.  Also, using many many 
intermediate certs should be discouraged.  While the structure of the cert 
chain may mirror management structure in a company, technical limitations may 
mandate a different structure for certificate chains.  In practice 2-3 
intermediate certificates should be enough for most purposes.  It may be better 
to have  a wider "fan  out" of certificate dependencies, instead of a deeper 
chain of certs.

  Alan DeKok.

_______________________________________________
Emu mailing list
Emu@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu

Reply via email to