Subject: Re: [Ace] call for adoption for draft-marin-ace-wg-coap-eap

From: Göran Selander <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2021 10:22:55 +0000

+1

Devices supporting CoAP and EAP based infrastructures are parts of two disjoint ecosystems both of which we consider important. The specification of CoAP as low layer transport of EAP is one component that can be added as upgrade to both systems which enable their combination.

This is not targeting the most constrained setting. The details of the draft needs to be further analyzed and tested, so a degree of commitment from CoAP and EAP experts would be needed. With that assumption I believe this specification could be a useful component.

Göran

On 2021-01-26, 10:40, "Ace on behalf of Josh Howlett" <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

    Hi,

    I believe this document should be adopted.

    * CoAP will benefit from a successful and highly extensible authentication framework that today supports many different forms of authentication, increasing the range of use cases that can be supported
    * it will enable CoAP-based infrastructure to use existing deployed AAA systems for authentication, reducing the barrier to adoption of CoAP
    * it will help deployers to align their CoAP and their other EAP-based infrastructures, such as IEEE 802.1X, helping them to leverage common business processes (e.g., identity proofing and credentialling). This could be particularly beneficial within certified environments (e.g., ISO27001).

    Josh

    Hi, 

    The charter approval by the IESG is expected to be approved in the coming weeks. In the meanwhile, this email starts a call for adoption on work that has been included in the charter. Of course, adoption is contingent on the rechartering succeeding.

    The document called for adoption is draft-marin-ace-wg-coap-eap available here:

    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-marin-ace-wg-coap-eap-07

    Please state your opinion on whether this work should not or should be adopted by the WG and express your motivation for such a statement. The call for adoption closes on February 4. 

    Yours, 

    Daniel

    -- 
    Daniel Migault

    Ericsson

    _______________________________________________
    Ace mailing list
    [email-masked]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace

---

From: Eduardo Inglés (IMT) <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2021 20:04:28 +0100

Hello,

I have used EAP over CoAP in implementations with different constrained 
devices and I have seen the performance of this protocol together with 
various EAP methods. I also worked with the PANAtiki implementation. 
Therefore, I present my opinion based on my experience and the follow-up 
I did of the draft.

Regarding the writing of the draft, I agree with Michael Richardson that 
it can be improved to facilitate the understanding of some concepts. For 
example, I would rewrite this sentence to understand it on a first reading:
"EAP requests go always from the EAP authenticator and the EAP peer
and the EAP responses from the EAP peer to the EAP authenticator."
And perhaps it is convenient to clarify in the abstract that this draft 
is a lower layer EAP to avoid confusion with the EAP methods. However, I 
do agree with the authors on the usefulness of the protocol.

In addition to what has already been exposed, I find that the size of 
the messages hardly affects the performance in constrained networks like 
LoRaWAN. In addition, the presence of CoAP in the main constrained OS is 
also an advantage for maintaining a lightweight code footprint.

Therefore, I support the adoption of the draft.

El 21/01/2021 a las 14:13, Daniel Migault escribió:
> Hi,
>
> The charter approval by the IESG is expected to be approved in the 
> coming weeks. In the meanwhile, this email starts a call for adoption 
> on work that has been included in the charter. Of course, adoption is 
> contingent on the rechartering succeeding.
>
> The document called for adoption is 
> draft-marin-ace-wg-coap-eap available here:
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-marin-ace-wg-coap-eap-07>
>
> Please state your opinion on whether this work should not or should be 
> adopted by the WG and express your motivation for such a statement. 
> The call for adoption closes on February 4.
>
> Yours,
> Daniel
>
>
> -- 
> Daniel Migault
> Ericsson
>

-- 
Eduardo Inglés Sánchez
[email-masked]

Département systèmes réseaux, cybersécurité et droit du numérique (SRCD)
IMT Atlantique, Rennes

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2021 16:29:59 -0500

Eduardo Inglés (IMT) wrote:
    > Regarding the writing of the draft, I agree with Michael Richardson
    > that it can be improved to facilitate the understanding of some
    > concepts. For example, I would rewrite this sentence to understand it
    > on a first reading: "EAP requests go always from the EAP authenticator
    > and the EAP peer and the EAP responses from the EAP peer to the EAP
    > authenticator."  And perhaps it is convenient to clarify in the
    > abstract that this draft is a lower layer EAP to avoid confusion with
    > the EAP methods. However, I do agree with the authors on the usefulness
    > of the protocol.

Could you please explain to me a use case?
Did you use an EAP method to key OSCORE?

Did you do this without a TLS method within the EAP?
If you did use a TLS method within EAP, then did you compare:

(1)  IP/UDP/CoAP/EAP/TLS
to:
(2)  IP/UDP/DTLS/CoAP

What was your EAP peer to AAA server communication transported?
Was it EAP over RADIUS?  If so, how did you setup the RADIUS key?
Or did you use DTLS or TLS for the RADIUS?

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

---

From: Daniel Migault <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 09:40:44 -0500

Hi,

I would like to close the call for adoption. As far as I can see, 5 strong
support for adoption in addition to the coauthors and one objection.
The objection for the draft adoption was a lake of a use case or a
description of a specific use case - that requires EAP over CoAP. On the
other hand it has been acknowledged the draft is expected to ease
interconnecting the CoAP and EAP (for lower layers) communities. I propose
we consider the draft as adopted - once the charter will be approved with
this item mentioned in the charter.

When the adoption becomes official I will ask the co-author to publish an
update of the document that addresses the comment received during the call
for adoption as well as provide a careful analysis and description on the
position of this work.

Yours,
Daniel

-- 
Daniel Migault
Ericsson

---

From: Daniel Migault <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 14:15:30 -0500

The ACE charter has been approved. Please move the draft to WG document
that is rename it to draft-ietf-ace-wg-coap-eap and publish it.

Our current milestone is : Aug 2021 - Submission to the IESG of "EAP-based
Authentication Service for CoAP"

The document will be discussed during interim and IETF meetings. Note that
discussions are expected to happen on the mailing list, so please keep the
WG informed about the progress as well as concerns to be resolved.

Yours,
Logan and Daniel

-- 
Daniel Migault
Ericsson