rfc9427v2.txt   rfc9427.txt 
skipping to change at line 331 skipping to change at line 331
While [RFC4851] implicitly permits the use of client certificates While [RFC4851] implicitly permits the use of client certificates
without proceeding to Phase 2, this practice is forbidden when EAP- without proceeding to Phase 2, this practice is forbidden when EAP-
FAST is used with TLS 1.3. If there is a requirement to use client FAST is used with TLS 1.3. If there is a requirement to use client
certificates with no inner tunnel methods, then EAP-TLS should be certificates with no inner tunnel methods, then EAP-TLS should be
used instead of EAP-FAST. used instead of EAP-FAST.
2.4. EAP-TTLS 2.4. EAP-TTLS
[RFC5281], Section 11.1 defines an implicit challenge when the inner [RFC5281], Section 11.1 defines an implicit challenge when the inner
methods of the Challenge Handshake Authentication Protocol (CHAP) methods of the Challenge Handshake Authentication Protocol (CHAP)
[RFC1994], MS-CHAP [RFC2433], or MS-CHAPv2 [RFC2759] are used. The [RFC1994], Microsoft CHAP (MS-CHAP) [RFC2433], or MS-CHAPv2 [RFC2759]
derivation for TLS 1.3 is instead given as: are used. The derivation for TLS 1.3 is instead given as:
EAP-TTLS_challenge = TLS-Exporter("ttls challenge",, n) EAP-TTLS_challenge = TLS-Exporter("ttls challenge",, n)
There is no "context_value" ([RFC8446], Section 7.5) passed to the There is no "context_value" ([RFC8446], Section 7.5) passed to the
TLS-Exporter function. The value "n" given here is the length of the TLS-Exporter function. The value "n" given here is the length of the
data required; [RFC5281] requires it to be 17 octets for CHAP data required; [RFC5281] requires it to be 17 octets for CHAP
([RFC5281], Section 11.2.2) and MS-CHAPv2 ([RFC5281], ([RFC5281], Section 11.2.2) and MS-CHAPv2 ([RFC5281],
Section 11.2.4), and 9 octets for MS-CHAP ([RFC5281], Section 11.2.4), and 9 octets for MS-CHAP ([RFC5281],
Section 11.2.3). Section 11.2.3).
skipping to change at line 804 skipping to change at line 804
protected, as they cannot be modified or forged. protected, as they cannot be modified or forged.
However, some inner methods do not provide for success or failure However, some inner methods do not provide for success or failure
indications. For example, the use of EAP-TTLS with inner PAP, CHAP, indications. For example, the use of EAP-TTLS with inner PAP, CHAP,
or MS-CHAP. Those methods send authentication credentials to the EAP or MS-CHAP. Those methods send authentication credentials to the EAP
server via the inner tunnel with no method to signal success or server via the inner tunnel with no method to signal success or
failure inside of the tunnel. failure inside of the tunnel.
There are functionally equivalent authentication methods that can be There are functionally equivalent authentication methods that can be
used to provide protected result indications. PAP can often be used to provide protected result indications. PAP can often be
replaced with EAP-GTC, CHAP with EAP-MD5, and MS-CHAPv1 with MS- replaced with EAP-Generic Token Card (EAP-GTC), CHAP with EAP-MD5,
CHAPv2 or EAP-MSCHAPv2. All of the replacement methods provide for and MS-CHAPv1 with MS-CHAPv2 or EAP-MSCHAPv2. All of the replacement
similar functionality and have protected success and failure methods provide for similar functionality and have protected success
indication. The main cost to this change is additional round trips. and failure indication. The main cost to this change is additional
round trips.
It is RECOMMENDED that implementations deprecate inner tunnel methods It is RECOMMENDED that implementations deprecate inner tunnel methods
that do not provide protected success and failure indications when that do not provide protected success and failure indications when
TLS session tickets cannot be used. Implementations SHOULD use EAP- TLS session tickets cannot be used. Implementations SHOULD use EAP-
GTC instead of PAP and EAP-MD5 instead of CHAP. Implementations GTC instead of PAP and EAP-MD5 instead of CHAP. Implementations
SHOULD use MS-CHAPv2 or EAP-MSCHAPv2 instead of MS-CHAPv1. New TLS- SHOULD use MS-CHAPv2 or EAP-MSCHAPv2 instead of MS-CHAPv1. New TLS-
based EAP methods MUST provide protected success and failure based EAP methods MUST provide protected success and failure
indications inside of the TLS tunnel. indications inside of the TLS tunnel.
When the inner authentication protocol indicates that authentication When the inner authentication protocol indicates that authentication
skipping to change at line 852 skipping to change at line 853
[RFC8126]. [RFC8126].
IANA has added the following labels to the "TLS Exporter Label" IANA has added the following labels to the "TLS Exporter Label"
registry defined by [RFC5705]. These labels are used in the registry defined by [RFC5705]. These labels are used in the
derivation of Key_Material and Method-Id as defined above in derivation of Key_Material and Method-Id as defined above in
Section 2, and they are used only for TEAP. Section 2, and they are used only for TEAP.
+============================+=========+=============+===========+ +============================+=========+=============+===========+
| Value | DTLS-OK | Recommended | Reference | | Value | DTLS-OK | Recommended | Reference |
+============================+=========+=============+===========+ +============================+=========+=============+===========+
| EXPORTER: teap session key | N | Y | RFC 9427 | | EXPORTER: teap session key | N | Y | RFC 9427 |
| seed | | | | | seed | | | |
+----------------------------+---------+-------------+-----------+ +----------------------------+---------+-------------+-----------+
| EXPORTER: Inner Methods | N | Y | RFC 9427 | | EXPORTER: Inner Methods | N | Y | RFC 9427 |
| Compound Keys | | | | | Compound Keys | | | |
+----------------------------+---------+-------------+-----------+ +----------------------------+---------+-------------+-----------+
| EXPORTER: Session Key | N | Y | RFC 9427 | | EXPORTER: Session Key | N | Y | RFC 9427 |
| Generating Function | | | | | Generating Function | | | |
+----------------------------+---------+-------------+-----------+ +----------------------------+---------+-------------+-----------+
| EXPORTER: Extended Session | N | Y | RFC 9427 | | EXPORTER: Extended Session | N | Y | RFC 9427 |
| Key Generating Function | | | | | Key Generating Function | | | |
+----------------------------+---------+-------------+-----------+ +----------------------------+---------+-------------+-----------+
| TEAPbindkey@ietf.org | N | Y | RFC 9427 | | TEAPbindkey@ietf.org | N | Y | RFC 9427 |
+----------------------------+---------+-------------+-----------+ +----------------------------+---------+-------------+-----------+
Table 1: TLS Exporter Labels Registry Table 1: TLS Exporter Labels Registry
7. References 7. References
7.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[IANA] IANA, "Method Types", [IANA] IANA, "Method Types",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/eap-numbers/>. <https://www.iana.org/assignments/eap-numbers/>.
skipping to change at line 1000 skipping to change at line 1001
RADIUS/TLS and RADIUS/DTLS Based on the Network Access RADIUS/TLS and RADIUS/DTLS Based on the Network Access
Identifier (NAI)", RFC 7585, DOI 10.17487/RFC7585, October Identifier (NAI)", RFC 7585, DOI 10.17487/RFC7585, October
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7585>. 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7585>.
Acknowledgments Acknowledgments
Thanks to Jorge Vergara for a detailed review of the requirements for Thanks to Jorge Vergara for a detailed review of the requirements for
various EAP Types. various EAP Types.
Thanks to Jorge Vergara, Bruno Periera Vidal, Alexander Clouter, Thanks to Jorge Vergara, Bruno Periera Vidal, Alexander Clouter,
Karri Huhtanen, and Heikki Vatiainen for reviews of this document, Karri Huhtanen, and Heikki Vatiainen for reviews of this document and
and for assistance with interoperability testing. for assistance with interoperability testing.
Author's Address Author's Address
Alan DeKok Alan DeKok
The FreeRADIUS Server Project The FreeRADIUS Server Project
Email: aland@freeradius.org Email: aland@freeradius.org
 End of changes. 8 change blocks. 
13 lines changed or deleted 14 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48.