Alan wrote: ><john.mattsson=40ericsson....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >> 4. was something I thought was clear. The -13 version states that “The >> EAP->TLS server commits to not send any more handshake messages”. This was >> >according to my memory exactly what was requested from the implementors. > > The text is in draft-mattsson-eap-tls13-02, but not in > draft-ietf-emu-eap->tls13-00. The announcement message is here: > >https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emu/8Axkmgh_ZPCTwhvmRjVMvXGTKko/ > > Which doesn't mention the commitment message. I can't find any other > >discussion about the commitment message on the archive. That doesn't > >necessarily mean much, as the archive is difficult to search. > > So it's not clear where that came from.
I Agree. The initial problem was brought up by Jouni who identified both the problem with the extra round-trip as well as the uncertainty in the EAP state machine. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emu/SBdblHmLQTbBwoZHK8Rih-g5ne8/ The idea with the commitment message was suggested by Jim Schaad during IETF 102 and then added in -01. The meaning of the commitment message was likely also discussed during that EMU session. I do not remember the exact discussions. It was likely not an implementor that suggested this definition. I mixed it up with Jouni raising the problem. > In the last weeks discussion, the commitment message has been given a lot of > >different interpretations that are not coming from the draft. The meaning of > >and requirements for the -13 commitment message now seems quite unclear. > > An in-progress draft is not an authoritative source of information. The WG > >is discussing what the commitment message means, with an eye to making > >recommendations for the draft, and implementors. Of course not, but the exact same definition has been in the draft since -01 without anybody question it before now. This made me think it was clear and widely accepted. That does not make it right and I have never said it is wrong to question that definition. I think we can agree that the meaning of the commitment message now seems unclear. /John _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
