Thanks for your comments Alan. Very helpful. See answers and comments below:
On Nov 16, 2017, Alan DeKok wrote:
>That's good. But as Bernard points out, there's no need to change
>EAP-TLS. You can just use TLS 1.3.
I don’t agree with that, see concrete details below.
>How so? 5216 says (esse
Hi Bernard,
On Thu, Nov 19, 2017, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>The big question is "Why not create a new EAP method"?
>The overall intent seems to be to create an pre-shared key EAP method
>optimized for 5G,
>based on EAP-TLS v1.3.
I don’t know why you have gotten the idea that the intent is pre-s
(trimming down the CC list to EMU)
> On Dec 1, 2017, at 8:16 AM, John Mattsson wrote:
>
> If RFC5216 actually said that it would be less of a problem, but RFC5216 has
> a large amount of normative terminology that is correct for TLS 1.0 - 1.2,
> but wrong for TLS 1.3.
Then the suggestion
