Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-emu-eap-tunnel-method-07.txt> (Tunnel EAP Method (TEAP) Version 1) to Proposed Standard

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi.
While I don't mind clarifying the server ID discussion, I don't see that
server ID has any relation to how the peer validates the name in the
server certificate.
Quoting section 7.6:
7.6.  Server Certificate Validation

   As part of the TLS negotiation, the server presents a certificate to
      the peer.  The peer SHOULD verify the validity of the EAP server
         certificate, and SHOULD also examine the EAP server name presented in
	    the certificate, in order to determine whether the EAP server can be
	       trusted.  When performing server certificate validation
	          implementations MUST provide support rules in [RFC5280] for
		     validating certificates against a known trust anchor.  In addition,
		        implementations MUST support matching the realm portion of the peer's
			   NAI against a SubjectAltName of type dNSName within the server
			      certificate.  However, in certain deployments, this might not be
			         turned on.  Please note that in the case where the EAP authentication
				    is remoted, the EAP server will not reside on the same machine as the
				       authenticator, and therefore the name in the EAP server's certificate
				          cannot be expected to match that of the intended destination.  In
					     this case, a more appropriate test might be whether the EAP server's
					        certificate is signed by a CA controlling the intended domain and
						   whether the authenticator can be authorized by a server in that
						      domain.
						      

According to that text checking against a DNS name SAN is the
mandatory-to-implement naming check for server certificates.
That seems adequate to me.





[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]