On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 10:24:06AM -0400, Richard Barnes wrote:
> In other words, I disagree with Olle's and John's assertion that there's no
> definition for mTLS. There is: "TLS where the server sends a
> CertificateRequest and the client sends a Certificate" Any TLS handshake
> where that happens is mutually authenticated.
>
> An RFC defining "mTLS" that adds a bunch of extra requirements on top of
> the above will just deepen the confusion. "In this scheme, we use mTLS
> between these two machines" ... "Oho, but you don't color the bits yellow
> and configure the PKI like RFC XXXX says you need to do for True mTLS".
Though one might reasonably argue that any post handshake authentication
scheme that performs channel binding is also "mTLS", and is often
preferable (sometimes in multiple ways). Sadly most post-handshake
authentication approaches do not perform channel binding.
--
Viktor.
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
