I agree, I also want to see PEAPv0 published for the same reasons (I am working on a draft of this, no ETA I can share at this time).
-----Original Message----- From: Alan DeKok [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 9:47 AM To: Stephen Hanna Cc: emu@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Emu] Crypto-binding in TTLS-v0 Stephen Hanna wrote: > draft-funk-eap-ttls-v0-01.txt describes EAP-TTLSv0 as it has > been implemented by vendors and adopted by other SDOs. We plan > to submit this for RFC status as part of the ongoing effort > to document popular EAP methods as RFCs. I think this document should be published. It's widely used, and deserves documentation in the IETF process. > As to your question about whether EAP-TTLSv0 is a chartered > work item for the EMU WG, that may depend in part on how the > WG decides to address the work item to deliver a strong > password-based method. At the EMU WG in Chicago, there were > two proposals: my proposal to use EAP-TTLSv0 with these > new AVPs and another proposal to define a new EAP method > especially for this purpose. The results of a hum were > inconclusive and it was agreed to take this discussion > to the email list. I am in favor of EAP-TTLSv0 + new AVP's. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
