Subject: [Emu] Francesca Palombini's No Objection on draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13-20: (with COMMENT)

From: Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2021 14:10:43 -0700

Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13-20: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work on this document. I only have one minor comment and a
nit. Neither require replies strictly speaking, please feel free to address as
you see fit.

Francesca

## minors

1. -----

   All the following references in [RFC5216] are updated as specified
   below when EAP-TLS is used with TLS 1.3.

   All references to [RFC2560] are updated with [RFC6960].

   All references to [RFC3280] are updated with [RFC5280].

   All references to [RFC4282] are updated with [RFC7542].

FP: I just want to double check everybody is ok with doing this type of update
to the references: as the table of contents of these documents are not exactly
the same, strictly speaking this could lead to some inaccuracies - for example
RFC 5216 states:

   as a server certificate.  Implementations SHOULD use the Extended Key
   Usage (see Section 4.2.1.13 of [RFC3280]) extension and ensure that

Section 4.2.1.13 of RFC 3280 is

                  4.2.1.13. CRL Distribution Points ..................45

Section 4.2.1.13 of RFC 5280 is

   4.2.1.13  Extended Key Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40

This is not a big issue because the table of contents are mostly the same, but
still requires the reader to be able to backtrack the right section (in this
case, it would be 4.2.1.14) (This is only an example, I haven't checked all
occurrences of those references in RFC 5216).

## nits

2. -----

FP: s/shepard/shepherd

---

From: Joseph Salowey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 22:38:08 -0700

Thanks Francesca,

We'll take a look at the reference substitution.  It would be better to be
accurate with the section.  A quick check suggests that this shouldn't be
too hard.  It's also possible that some of the references may be in text
that is updated.

Cheers,

Joe

---

From: Mohit Sethi M <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 12:37:05 +0000

Hi Francesca,

Thanks for reviewing. Answers in-line.

--Mohit

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13/
John has updated Appendix A: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13-21#appendix-A.
> FP: s/shepard/shepherd
Fixed.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emu mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu