> -----Original Message----- > From: Pascal Urien [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 6:52 AM > To: Joseph Salowey (jsalowey); emu@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Emu] Moving forward with the EMU password method > > Hi Joe, > > I support method 2, with the following remarks > > Under VISTA i have found three tunnels methods already > supported, PEAP, EAP-FAST, TTLS. > PEAP and TTLS are drafts with multiple versions. EAP-FAST is an RFC > > All these methods use two phases, phase 1 and phase 2 > > Phase 1 coding (e.g EAP format) looks similar, i did not > have sufficient time to check if they are exactly > equivalent (does somebody know that ?) > > Phase 2 coding is different in every cases. > > Could it be possible to think about a method with a common > phase 1 coding and multiple phase 2 coding ? > [Joe] While this would be possible, the working group would probably have to select a particular phase 2 coding to be mandatory to implement for interoperability.
> Cheers > > Pascal > > > > > At 20:02 03/10/2007, Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) wrote: > >At the IETF in Chicago we had a hum as to the direction we > should take > >with the password based method. I would like to clarify the choices > >and determine working group consensus on the list. The two > directions > >are given below please express you preference by 10/25. > > > >Option 1 - Password based method - this option restricts the > work item > >to what is currently in the charter. The resulting method > would have a > >new method ID and selecting this method would mean selecting > a password > >based exchange that meets the requirements we already set > forth. The > >method may use an existing method as its base. > > > >Option 2 - Tunneling method - this option requires clarifying the > >charter to work on a tunneling method which would then be > used to meet > >the password method requirements. This would include making sure we > >have a valid set of requirements to work with. The working group may > >select an existing method as its base and have backwards > compatibility > >as a goal, however whether the method uses the same method > ID and any > >modifications to the method will be determined by working group and > >IETF consensus. > > > >Thanks, > > > >Joe > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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
