[Emu] Issue #19: Method Chaining

["Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <jsalowey at cisco.com>]

#19: Method Chaining

 > Section 3.3
 >
 > "  Several circumstances are best addressed by using chained EAP
 >    methods.  For example, it may be desirable to authenticate the
user
 >    and also authenticate the device that he or she is using."
 > This requirement can be met by support for cryptographic
 > binding, without chaining of EAP methods.  For example, the
 > combination of TLS and an inner method can support
 > user/device auth.  Given that, why is support for chained
 > methods a must, and not device/user auth support?
 >
 and
 > Section 4.6.2
 >
 > "   The tunnel method MUST support the chaining of multiple
 > EAP methods.
 >    The tunnel method MUST allow for the communication of intermediate
 >    result and verification of compound binding between executed inner
 >    methods when chained methods are employed.
 > "
 >
 > Given that the basic use case (machine + user auth) doesn't
 > require chaining of EAP methods, why is this a MUST?
 >

--

Comment(by jsalowey at cisco.com):

 In the Stockholm meeting there was indication that there were other
 mechanisms that could require chaining, such as posture checking.
People
 seemed to favor changing from MUST to SHOULD.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/emu/trac/ticket/19#comment:1>
emu <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/emu/>