Thanks Alan, I am glad to see that the evaluation is continuing on the
thread.....I think both TTLS and EAP-FAST are being widely deployed and
both merit consideration.
Nancy.
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan DeKok [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 7:45 PM
To: Nancy Winget (ncamwing)
Cc: Ryan Hurst; Stephen Hanna; emu@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Emu] Crypto-binding in TTLS-v0
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
Emu@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
