On Jan 28, 2019, at 11:22 AM, John Mattsson <john.matts...@ericsson.com> wrote: > > The intention with "All other parameters such as MSK and EMSK are derived as > specified in EAP-TLS [RFC5216], Section 2.3." was to only mention changes > compared to RFC 5216.
Sure. The confusion is that when reading RFC 5216, it defines Key_Material in the same block of text as MSK and EMSK. That raises the possibility for confusion. > Avoiding potential confusion is a very important goal to avoid incompatible > implementations. I think we should make any clarification needed to avoid > that. Your mail only mentions MSK and EMSK, but I think the situation are > similar with Enc-RECV-Key, Enc-SEND-Key, RECV-IV, and SEND-IV. > > Should all of the following be added to draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13? I think so, yes. Maybe also: All other parameters such as MSK and EMSK are derived in the same manner as with EAP-TLS [RFC5216], Section 2.3. The definitions are repeated below for simplicity: Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
