On Sep 9, 2022, at 12:04 AM, Joseph Salowey <j...@salowey.net> wrote > I've done a re-review of the TEAP section and I think it would be good to > move forward, but I have one question below. The current plan for this > document is to resolve the issue and then submit the document (or revision if > necessary) to the IESG for publication. If you have concerns about including > the EAP-FAST or TEAP sections of the document please respond to this message. > > > Question: > > Why do we use a different label for the TEAP session key seed in this > document: > > RFC 7170 label - "EXPORTER: teap session key seed" > Current draft label - "EXPORTER: session key seed" > > Do we need to use a different label or can we use the same one?
It should be fine to use the same one. I don't recall why it's not the same as for RFC 7170. Probably just an oversight. > Also wouldn't it be better to start all of the exporter labels with teap > since these keys are specific to teap? > > * EXPORTER: session key seed > * EXPORTER: Inner Methods Compound Keys > * EXPORTER: Session Key Generating Function > * EXPORTER: Extended Session Key Generating Function Quite possibly. > I guess the argument is that those are the labels that are used in TEAP > (without exporter) and the same labels are used by EAP-FAST (with different > method ID). My main concern is that they labels are somewhat generic > (session key seed, session key generating function) which might lead to > confusion. It's a balance between that, and changing them to something different just for TLS 1.3. Given the minimal feedback from implementors, I'd be inclined to change as little as possible. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
