Alan DeKok wrote:
> TBH, I haven't seen an implementation.
> I suspect that the lack of implementations is why these questions are
> only coming up now.
>> My feeling is that it would be better to make the TLV length variable
>> with the hash length. However, I do not s
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 03:12:15PM -0400, Joseph Salowey wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 4:11 PM Jouni Malinen wrote:
> > (2) S-IMCK[j] derivation when inner EAP methods in the sequence derive
> > both MSK and EMSK (or even more complicated, if there are multiple inner
> > EAP authentication metho
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 01:50:26PM -0400, Joseph Salowey wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 4:11 PM Jouni Malinen wrote:
> > (1) Crypto-Binding TLV format for the cases where the negotiated TLS
> > cipher suite uses SHA256 (or SHA384, for that matter) instead of SHA-1 (and
> > I'd hope all deployment
On Jul 22, 2019, at 1:50 PM, Joseph Salowey wrote:
> [Joe] I'd like to hear if anyone has an implementation, and how they
> implemented on a cipher suite that is not SHA-1.
TBH, I haven't seen an implementation.
I suspect that the lack of implementations is why these questions are only
com
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 4:11 PM Jouni Malinen wrote:
>
>
> (2) S-IMCK[j] derivation when inner EAP methods in the sequence derive
> both MSK and EMSK (or even more complicated, if there are multiple inner
> EAP authentication methods that have difference in whether they derive MSK
> or EMSK):
> h
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 4:11 PM Jouni Malinen wrote:
>
>
> (1) Crypto-Binding TLV format for the cases where the negotiated TLS
> cipher suite uses SHA256 (or SHA384, for that matter) instead of SHA-1 (and
> I'd hope all deployments of TEAP would be recent enough to avoid use of
> SHA-1..):
> htt
