Nancy Winget (ncamwing) wrote: > Publishing TTLS and PEAPv0 (and PEAPv1) is a worthy cause given that > there are deployments out there. However, I think that is a different > item/issue than having it be taken as an EMU work item. For instance, > it can be published as an informational RFC much the same way EAP-FAST > is now RFC 4851.
I would prefer at least that. > It is not clear why TTLS should become an EMU work item or standardized > as the means to deliver a strong password based method. There are other > tunnel methods such as PEAP and EAP-FAST that can also meet the > requirements. TTLS has a much more flexible structure for in-tunnel transport than PEAP does. TTLS is also widely deployed than EAP-FAST. > If we are discussing what would need to be > changed/updated to TTLS to meet the requirements, perhaps we should also > be evaluating PEAP and EAP-FAST as alternatives as they also meet the > requirements and perhaps more so than TTLS. I believe that the evaluation is ongoing on this list. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
