[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-ms-emu-eaptlscert) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 Draft is active
In: Approved-announcement_to_be_sent
Network Working Group                                           M. Sethi
Internet-Draft                                               J. Mattsson
Intended status: Informational                                  Ericsson
Expires: December 17, 2020                                     S. Turner
                                                                   sn3rd
                                                           June 15, 2020


        Handling Large Certificates and Long Certificate Chains
                        in TLS-based EAP Methods
                      draft-ietf-emu-eaptlscert-05

Abstract

   EAP-TLS and other TLS-based EAP methods are widely deployed and used
   for network access authentication.  Large certificates and long
   certificate chains combined with authenticators that drop an EAP
   session after only 40 - 50 round-trips is a major deployment problem.
   This document looks at the this problem in detail and describes the
   potential solutions available.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 17, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect



Sethi, et al.           Expires December 17, 2020               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft    Certificates in TLS-based EAP Methods        June 2020


   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Experience with Deployments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Handling of Large Certificates and Long Certificate Chains  .   5
     4.1.  Updating Certificates and Certificate Chains  . . . . . .   5
       4.1.1.  Guidelines for Certificates . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.1.2.  Pre-distributing and Omitting CA certificates . . . .   6
       4.1.3.  Using Fewer Intermediate Certificates . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  Updating TLS and EAP-TLS Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       4.2.1.  URLs for Client Certificates  . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       4.2.2.  Caching Certificates  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       4.2.3.  Compressing Certificates  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       4.2.4.  Compact TLS 1.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       4.2.5.  Suppressing Intermediate Certificates . . . . . . . .   9
       4.2.6.  Raw Public Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       4.2.7.  New Certificate Types and Compression Algorithms  . .   9
     4.3.  Updating Authenticators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

1.  Introduction

   The Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP), defined in [RFC3748],
   provides a standard mechanism for support of multiple authentication
   methods.  EAP-Transport Layer Security (EAP-TLS) [RFC5216]
   [I-D.ietf-emu-eap-tls13] relies on TLS [RFC8446] to provide strong
   mutual authentication with certificates [RFC5280] and is widely
   deployed and often used for network access authentication.  There are
   also many other TLS-based EAP methods, such as Flexible
   Authentication via Secure Tunneling (EAP-FAST) [RFC4851], Tunneled
   Transport Layer Security (EAP-TTLS) [RFC5281], Tunnel Extensible
   Authentication Protocol (EAP-TEAP) [RFC7170], and possibly many
   vendor specific EAP methods.

   Certificates in EAP deployments can be relatively large, and the
   certificate chains can be long.  Unlike the use of TLS on the web,



Sethi, et al.           Expires December 17, 2020               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft    Certificates in TLS-based EAP Methods        June 2020


   where typically only the TLS server is authenticated; EAP-TLS
   deployments typically authenticates both the EAP peer and the EAP
   server.  Also, from deployment experience, EAP peers typically have
   longer certificate chains than servers.  This is because EAP peers
   often follow organizational hierarchies and tend to have many
   intermediate certificates.  Thus, EAP-TLS authentication usually
   involves significantly more octets than when TLS is used as part of
   HTTPS.

   Section 3.1 of [RFC3748] states that EAP implementations can assume a
   MTU of at least 1020 octets from lower layers.  The EAP fragment size
   in typical deployments is just 1020 - 1500 octets (since the maximum
   Ethernet frame size is ~ 1500 bytes).  Thus, EAP-TLS authentication
   needs to be fragmented into many smaller packets for transportation
   over the lower layers.  Such fragmentation can not only negatively
   affect the latency, but also results in other challenges.  For
   example, some EAP authenticator (access point) implementations will
   drop an EAP session if it has not finished after 40 - 50 round-trips.
   This is a major problem and means that in many situations, the EAP
   peer cannot perform network access authentication even though both
   the sides have valid credentials for successful authentication and
   key derivation.

   Not all EAP deployments are constrained by the MTU of the lower
   layer.  For example, some implementations support EAP over Ethernet
   "Jumbo" frames that can easily allow very large EAP packets.  Larger
   packets will naturally help lower the number of round trips required
   for successful EAP-TLS authentication.  However, deployment
   experience has shown that these jumbo frames are not always
   implemented correctly.  Additionally, EAP fragment size is also
   restricted by protocols such as RADIUS [RFC2865] which are
   responsible for transporting EAP messages between an authenticator
   and an EAP server.  RADIUS can generally transport only about 4000
   octets of EAP in a single message (the maximum length of RADIUS
   packet is restricted to 4096 octets in [RFC2865]).

   This document looks at related work and potential tools available for
   overcoming the deployment challenges induced by large certificates
   and long certificate chains.  It then discusses the solutions
   available to overcome these challenges.

2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.



Sethi, et al.           Expires December 17, 2020               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft    Certificates in TLS-based EAP Methods        June 2020


   Readers are expected to be familiar with the terms and concepts used
   in EAP [RFC3748], EAP-TLS [RFC5216], and TLS [RFC8446].  In
   particular, this document frequently uses the following terms as they
   have been defined in [RFC5216]:

   Authenticator  The entity initiating EAP authentication.  Typically
         implemented as part of a network switch or a wireless access
         point.

   EAP peer  The entity that responds to the authenticator.  In
         [IEEE-802.1X], this entity is known as the supplicant.  In EAP-
         TLS, the EAP peer implements the TLS client role.

   EAP server  The entity that terminates the EAP authentication method
         with the peer.  In the case where no backend authentication
         server is used, the EAP server is part of the authenticator.
         In the case where the authenticator operates in pass-through
         mode, the EAP server is located on the backend authentication
         server.  In EAP-TLS, the EAP server implements the TLS server
         role.

   The document additionally uses the terms trust anchor and
   certification path defined in [RFC5280].

3.  Experience with Deployments

   As stated earlier, the EAP fragment size in typical deployments is
   just 1020 - 1500 octets.  Certificate sizes can however be large for
   a number of reasons:

   o  Long Subject Alternative Name field.

   o  Long Public Key and Signature fields.

   o  Can contain multiple object identifiers (OID) that indicate the
      permitted uses of the certificate as noted in Section 5.3 of
      [RFC5216].  Most implementations verify the presence of these OIDs
      for successful authentication.

   o  Multiple user groups in the certificate.

   A certificate chain (called a certification path in [RFC5280]) can
   have 2 - 6 intermediate certificates between the end-entity
   certificate and the trust anchor.

   Many access point implementations drop EAP sessions that do not
   complete within 50 round-trips.  This means that if the chain is




Sethi, et al.           Expires December 17, 2020               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft    Certificates in TLS-based EAP Methods        June 2020


   larger than ~ 60 kB, EAP-TLS authentication cannot complete
   successfully in most deployments.

4.  Handling of Large Certificates and Long Certificate Chains

   This section discusses some possible alternatives for overcoming the
   challenge of large certificates and long certificate chains in EAP-
   TLS authentication.  In Section 4.1 we look at recommendations that
   require an update of the certificates or certificate chains that are
   used for EAP-TLS authentication without requiring changes to the
   existing EAP-TLS code base.  We also provide some guidelines when
   issuing certificates for use with EAP-TLS.  In Section 4.2 we look at
   recommendations that rely on updates to the EAP-TLS implementations
   which can be deployed with existing certificates.  In Section 4.3 we
   shortly discuss the solution to update or reconfigure authenticator
   which can be deployed without changes to existing certificates or
   EAP-TLS code.

4.1.  Updating Certificates and Certificate Chains

   Many IETF protocols now use elliptic curve cryptography (ECC)
   [RFC6090] for the underlying cryptographic operations.  The use of
   ECC can reduce the size of certificates and signatures.  For example,
   at a 128-bit security level, the size of public keys with traditional
   RSA is about 384 bytes, while the size of public keys with ECC is
   only 32-64 bytes.  Similarly, the size of digital signatures with
   traditional RSA is 384 bytes, while the size is only 64 bytes with
   elliptic curve digital signature algorithm (ECDSA) and Edwards-curve
   digital signature algorithm (EdDSA) [RFC8032].  Using certificates
   that use ECC can reduce the number of messages in EAP-TLS
   authentication which can alleviate the problem of authenticators
   dropping an EAP session because of too many round-trips.  In the
   absence of a standard application profile specifying otherwise, TLS
   1.3 [RFC8446] requires implementations to support ECC.  New cipher
   suites that use ECC are also specified for TLS 1.2 [RFC5289].  Using
   ECC based cipher suites with existing code can significantly reduce
   the number of messages in a single EAP session.

4.1.1.  Guidelines for Certificates

   The general guideline of keeping the certificate size small by not
   populating fields with excessive information can help avert the
   problems of failed EAP-TLS authentication.  More specific
   recommendations for certificates used with EAP-TLS is as follows:

   o  Object Identifiers (OIDs) is ASN.1 data type that defines unique
      identifiers for objects.  The OID's ASN.1 value, which is a string
      of integers, is then used to name objects to which they relate.



Sethi, et al.           Expires December 17, 2020               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft    Certificates in TLS-based EAP Methods        June 2020


      The DER length for the 1st two integers is always one octet and
      subsequent integers are base 128-encoded in the fewest possible
      octets.  OIDs are used lavishly in X.509 certificates and while
      not all can be avoided, e.g., OIDs for extensions or algorithms
      and their associate parameters, some are well within the
      certificate issuer's control:

      *  Each naming attribute in a DN (Directory Name) has one.  DNs
         used in the issuer and subject fields as well as numerous
         extensions.  A shallower naming will be smaller, e.g., C=FI,
         O=Example, SN=B0A123499EFC vs C=FI, O=Example, OU=Division 1,
         SOPN=Southern Finland, CN=Coolest IoT Gadget Ever,
         SN=B0A123499EFC.

      *  Every certificate policy (and qualifier) and any mappings to
         another policy uses identifiers.  Consider carefully what
         policies apply.

   o  DirectoryString and GeneralName types are used extensively to name
      things, e.g., the DN naming attribute O= (the organizational
      naming attribute) DirectoryString includes "Example" for the
      Example organization and uniformResourceIdentifier can be used to
      indicate the location of the CRL, e.g., "http://crl.example.com/
      sfig2s1-128.crl", in the CRL Distribution Point extension.  For
      these particular examples, each character is a byte.  For some
      non-ASCII character strings in the DN, characters can be multi-
      byte.  Obviously, the names need to be unique, but there is more
      than one way to accomplish this without long strings.  This is
      especially true if the names are not meant to be meaningful to
      users.

   o  Extensions are necessary to comply with [RFC5280], but the vast
      majority are optional.  Include only those that are necessary to
      operate.

   o  As stated earlier, certificate chains of the EAP peer often follow
      organizational hierarchies.  In such cases, information in
      intermediate certificates (such as postal addresses) do not
      provide any additional value and they can be shortened (for
      example: only including the department name instead of the full
      postal address).

4.1.2.  Pre-distributing and Omitting CA certificates

   The TLS Certificate message conveys the sending endpoint's
   certificate chain.  TLS allows endpoints to reduce the size of the
   Certificate message by omitting certificates that the other endpoint
   is known to possess.  When using TLS 1.3, all certificates that



Sethi, et al.           Expires December 17, 2020               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft    Certificates in TLS-based EAP Methods        June 2020


   specify a trust anchor known by the other endpoint may be omitted
   (see Section 4.4.2 of [RFC8446]).  When using TLS 1.2 or earlier,
   only the self-signed certificate that specifies the root certificate
   authority may be omitted (see Section 7.4.2 of [RFC5246] Therefore,
   updating TLS implementations to version 1.3 can help to significantly
   reduce the number of messages exchanged for EAP-TLS authentication.
   The omitted certificates need to be pre-distributed independently of
   TLS and the TLS implementations need to be configured to omit these
   pre-distributed certificates.

4.1.3.  Using Fewer Intermediate Certificates

   The EAP peer certificate chain does not have to mirror the
   organizational hierarchy.  For successful EAP-TLS authentication,
   certificate chains SHOULD NOT contain more than 2-4 intermediate
   certificates.

   Administrators responsible for deployments using TLS-based EAP
   methods can examine the certificate chains and make rough
   calculations about the number of round trips required for successful
   authentication.  For example, dividing the total size of all the
   certificates in the peer and server certificate chain by 1020 will
   indicate the minimum number of round trips required.  If this number
   exceeds 50, then, administrators can expect failures with many common
   authenticator implementations.

4.2.  Updating TLS and EAP-TLS Code

   This section discusses how the fragmentation problem can be avoided
   by updating the underlying TLS or EAP-TLS implementation.  Note that
   in many cases the new feature may already be implemented in the
   underlying library and simply needs to be taken into use.

4.2.1.  URLs for Client Certificates

   [RFC6066] defines the "client_certificate_url" extension which allows
   TLS clients to send a sequence of Uniform Resource Locators (URLs)
   instead of the client certificate.  URLs can refer to a single
   certificate or a certificate chain.  Using this extension can curtail
   the amount of fragmentation in EAP deployments thereby allowing EAP
   sessions to successfully complete.

4.2.2.  Caching Certificates

   The TLS Cached Information Extension [RFC7924] specifies an extension
   where a server can exclude transmission of certificate information
   cached in an earlier TLS handshake.  The client and the server would
   first execute the full TLS handshake.  The client would then cache



Sethi, et al.           Expires December 17, 2020               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft    Certificates in TLS-based EAP Methods        June 2020


   the certificate provided by the server.  When the TLS client later
   connects to the same TLS server without using session resumption, it
   can attach the "cached_info" extension to the ClientHello message.
   This would allow the client to indicate that it has cached the
   certificate.  The client would also include a fingerprint of the
   server certificate chain.  If the server's certificate has not
   changed, then the server does not need to send its certificate and
   the corresponding certificate chain again.  In case information has
   changed, which can be seen from the fingerprint provided by the
   client, the certificate payload is transmitted to the client to allow
   the client to update the cache.  The extension however necessitates a
   successful full handshake before any caching.  This extension can be
   useful when, for example, when a successful authentication between an
   EAP peer and EAP server has occurred in the home network.  If
   authenticators in a roaming network are more strict at dropping long
   EAP sessions, an EAP peer can use the Cached Information Extension to
   reduce the total number of messages.

   However, if all authenticators drop the EAP session for a given EAP
   peer and EAP server combination, a successful full handshake is not
   possible.  An option in such a scenario would be to cache validated
   certificate chains even if the EAP-TLS exchange fails, but this is
   currently not allowed according to [RFC7924].

4.2.3.  Compressing Certificates

   The TLS working group is also working on an extension for TLS 1.3
   [I-D.ietf-tls-certificate-compression] that allows compression of
   certificates and certificate chains during full handshakes.  The
   client can indicate support for compressed server certificates by
   including this extension in the ClientHello message.  Similarly, the
   server can indicate support for compression of client certificates by
   including this extension in the CertificateRequest message.  While
   such an extension can alleviate the problem of excessive
   fragmentation in EAP-TLS, it can only be used with TLS version 1.3
   and higher.  Deployments that rely on older versions of TLS cannot
   benefit from this extension.

4.2.4.  Compact TLS 1.3

   [I-D.ietf-tls-ctls] defines a "compact" version of TLS 1.3 and
   reduces the message size of the protocol by removing obsolete
   material and using more efficient encoding.  It also defines a
   compression profile with which either side can define dictionary of
   "known certificates".  Thus, cTLS can provide another mechanism for
   EAP-TLS deployments to reduce the size of messages and avoid
   excessive fragmentation.




Sethi, et al.           Expires December 17, 2020               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft    Certificates in TLS-based EAP Methods        June 2020


4.2.5.  Suppressing Intermediate Certificates

   For a client that has all intermediates, having the server send
   intermediates in the TLS handshake increases the size of the
   handshake unnecessarily.  The TLS working group is working on an
   extension for TLS 1.3 [I-D.thomson-tls-sic] that allows a TLS client
   that has access to the complete set of published intermediate
   certificates to inform servers of this fact so that the server can
   avoid sending intermediates, reducing the size of the TLS handshake.
   The mechanism is intended to be complementary with certificate
   compression.

4.2.6.  Raw Public Keys

   [RFC7250] defines a new certificate type and TLS extensions to enable
   the use of raw public keys for authentication.  Raw public keys use
   only a subset of information found in typical certificates and are
   therefore much smaller in size.  However, raw public keys require an
   out-of-band mechanism to bind the public key with the entity
   presenting the key.  Using raw public keys will obviously avoid the
   fragmentation problems resulting from large certificates and long
   certificate chains.  Deployments can consider their use as long as an
   appropriate out-of-band mechanism for binding public keys with
   identifiers is in place.

4.2.7.  New Certificate Types and Compression Algorithms

   There is ongoing work to specify new certificate types and
   compression algorithms.  For example,
   [I-D.mattsson-tls-cbor-cert-compress] defines a compression algorithm
   for certificates that relies on Concise Binary Object Representation
   (CBOR) [RFC7049].  [I-D.tschofenig-tls-cwt] registers a new TLS
   Certificate type which would enable TLS implementations to use CBOR
   Web Tokens (CWTs) [RFC8392] as certificates.  While these are early
   initiatives, future EAP-TLS deployments can consider the use of these
   new certificate types and compression algorithms to avoid large
   message sizes.

4.3.  Updating Authenticators

   There are several legitimate reasons that authenticators may want to
   limit the number of round-trips/packets/octets that can be sent.  The
   main reason has been to work around issues where the EAP peer and EAP
   server end up in an infinite loop ACKing their messages.  Another
   second reason is that unlimited communication from an unauthenticated
   device as EAP could otherwise be use for bulk data transfer.  A third
   reason is to prevent denial-of-service attacks.




Sethi, et al.           Expires December 17, 2020               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft    Certificates in TLS-based EAP Methods        June 2020


   Updating the millions of already deployed access points and switches
   is in many cases not realistic.  Vendors may be out of business or do
   no longer support the products and administrators may have lost the
   login information to the devices.  For practical purposes the EAP
   infrastructure is ossified for the time being.

   Vendors making new authenticators should consider increasing the
   number of round-trips allowed to 100 before denying the EAP
   authentication to complete.  At the same time, administrators
   responsible for EAP deployments should ensure that this 100 roundtrip
   limit is not exceeded in practice.

5.  IANA Considerations

   This document includes no request to IANA.

6.  Security Considerations

   Updating implementations to TLS version 1.3 allows omitting all
   certificates with a trust anchor known by the other endpoint.  TLS
   1.3 additionally provides improved security, privacy, and reduced
   latency for EAP-TLS [I-D.ietf-emu-eap-tls13].

   When compressing certificates, the underlying compression algorithm
   MUST output the same data that was provided as input by.  After
   decompression, the Certificate message MUST be processed as if it
   were encoded without being compressed.  Additional security
   considerations when compressing certificates are specified in
   [I-D.ietf-tls-certificate-compression]

   As noted in [I-D.thomson-tls-sic], suppressing intermediate
   certificates creates an unencrypted signal that might be used to
   identify which clients believe that they have all intermediates.
   This might also allow more effective fingerprinting and tracking of
   clients.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-emu-eap-tls13]
              Mattsson, J. and M. Sethi, "Using EAP-TLS with TLS 1.3",
              draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13-10 (work in progress), June 2020.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.



Sethi, et al.           Expires December 17, 2020              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft    Certificates in TLS-based EAP Methods        June 2020


   [RFC3748]  Aboba, B., Blunk, L., Vollbrecht, J., Carlson, J., and H.
              Levkowetz, Ed., "Extensible Authentication Protocol
              (EAP)", RFC 3748, DOI 10.17487/RFC3748, June 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3748>.

   [RFC4851]  Cam-Winget, N., McGrew, D., Salowey, J., and H. Zhou, "The
              Flexible Authentication via Secure Tunneling Extensible
              Authentication Protocol Method (EAP-FAST)", RFC 4851,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4851, May 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4851>.

   [RFC5216]  Simon, D., Aboba, B., and R. Hurst, "The EAP-TLS
              Authentication Protocol", RFC 5216, DOI 10.17487/RFC5216,
              March 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5216>.

   [RFC5280]  Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S.,
              Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key
              Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
              (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, DOI 10.17487/RFC5280, May 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5280>.

   [RFC5281]  Funk, P. and S. Blake-Wilson, "Extensible Authentication
              Protocol Tunneled Transport Layer Security Authenticated
              Protocol Version 0 (EAP-TTLSv0)", RFC 5281,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5281, August 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5281>.

   [RFC7170]  Zhou, H., Cam-Winget, N., Salowey, J., and S. Hanna,
              "Tunnel Extensible Authentication Protocol (TEAP) Version
              1", RFC 7170, DOI 10.17487/RFC7170, May 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7170>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

7.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-tls-certificate-compression]
              Ghedini, A. and V. Vasiliev, "TLS Certificate
              Compression", draft-ietf-tls-certificate-compression-10
              (work in progress), January 2020.

   [I-D.ietf-tls-ctls]
              Rescorla, E., Barnes, R., and H. Tschofenig, "Compact TLS
              1.3", draft-ietf-tls-ctls-00 (work in progress), April
              2020.




Sethi, et al.           Expires December 17, 2020              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft    Certificates in TLS-based EAP Methods        June 2020


   [I-D.mattsson-tls-cbor-cert-compress]
              Mattsson, J., Selander, G., Raza, S., Hoglund, J., and M.
              Furuhed, "CBOR Certificate Algorithm for TLS Certificate
              Compression", draft-mattsson-tls-cbor-cert-compress-00
              (work in progress), March 2020.

   [I-D.thomson-tls-sic]
              Thomson, M., "Suppressing Intermediate Certificates in
              TLS", draft-thomson-tls-sic-00 (work in progress), March
              2019.

   [I-D.tschofenig-tls-cwt]
              Tschofenig, H. and M. Brossard, "Using CBOR Web Tokens
              (CWTs) in Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram
              Transport Layer Security (DTLS)", draft-tschofenig-tls-
              cwt-01 (work in progress), November 2019.

   [IEEE-802.1X]
              Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, "IEEE
              Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks -- Port-
              Based Network Access Control", IEEE Standard 802.1X-2010 ,
              February 2010.

   [RFC2865]  Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson,
              "Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)",
              RFC 2865, DOI 10.17487/RFC2865, June 2000,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2865>.

   [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.

   [RFC5289]  Rescorla, E., "TLS Elliptic Curve Cipher Suites with SHA-
              256/384 and AES Galois Counter Mode (GCM)", RFC 5289,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5289, August 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5289>.

   [RFC6066]  Eastlake 3rd, D., "Transport Layer Security (TLS)
              Extensions: Extension Definitions", RFC 6066,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6066, January 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6066>.

   [RFC6090]  McGrew, D., Igoe, K., and M. Salter, "Fundamental Elliptic
              Curve Cryptography Algorithms", RFC 6090,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6090, February 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6090>.




Sethi, et al.           Expires December 17, 2020              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft    Certificates in TLS-based EAP Methods        June 2020


   [RFC7049]  Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
              Representation (CBOR)", RFC 7049, DOI 10.17487/RFC7049,
              October 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7049>.

   [RFC7250]  Wouters, P., Ed., Tschofenig, H., Ed., Gilmore, J.,
              Weiler, S., and T. Kivinen, "Using Raw Public Keys in
              Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport
              Layer Security (DTLS)", RFC 7250, DOI 10.17487/RFC7250,
              June 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7250>.

   [RFC7924]  Santesson, S. and H. Tschofenig, "Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Cached Information Extension", RFC 7924,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7924, July 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7924>.

   [RFC8032]  Josefsson, S. and I. Liusvaara, "Edwards-Curve Digital
              Signature Algorithm (EdDSA)", RFC 8032,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8032, January 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8032>.

   [RFC8392]  Jones, M., Wahlstroem, E., Erdtman, S., and H. Tschofenig,
              "CBOR Web Token (CWT)", RFC 8392, DOI 10.17487/RFC8392,
              May 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8392>.

   [RFC8446]  Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
              Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.

Acknowledgements

   This draft is a result of several useful discussions with Alan DeKok,
   Bernard Aboba, Jari Arkko, Jouni Malinen, Darshak Thakore, and Hannes
   Tschofening.

Authors' Addresses

   Mohit Sethi
   Ericsson
   Jorvas  02420
   Finland

   Email: mohit@piuha.net









Sethi, et al.           Expires December 17, 2020              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft    Certificates in TLS-based EAP Methods        June 2020


   John Mattsson
   Ericsson
   Kista
   Sweden

   Email: john.mattsson@ericsson.com


   Sean Turner
   sn3rd

   Email: sean@sn3rd.com







































Sethi, et al.           Expires December 17, 2020              [Page 14]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/