That's true. One person's opinion does not negate consensus, even if that one person is the only one who is able to opine in the alloted time given for opinions (twice now). But so what? If someone asks then I'll give an honest opinion, especially since no one else seems to be able to.
But maybe you're right. Any additional work taken on by this group would distract from the fantastic progress we've made in the past 9 months on the tunneled method. It would be a shame to lose all that. Yes, let's just focus on the snail race.... Dan. On Sun, April 27, 2008 6:10 pm, Stephen Hanna wrote: > I apologize for my tardy response. I have been on vacation. > > I agree with and support the proposed charter below. As for > Dan's suggestion that we not require the password based > method to be based on the tunnel method, the WG already > went through a long discussion and consensus check last > fall on this matter. There was clear consensus that we > should NOT work on a new password based method designed > to function without the tunnel method. One person's > opinion to the contrary does not negate that consensus. > I think that the reason we are not seeing much email on > this charter is that the issues and language have been > hashed through many times. > > Thanks, > > Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Dan Harkins > Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 5:43 PM > To: Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) > Cc: emu@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Emu] EMU charter revision > > > Hi Joe, > > Once again, a call for comments and I'm the only one to comment. > > Whether removing that line achieves "my goals" or not I still think > it should be removed. And that really seems to be the only comment > on the charter you get when you ask. > > regards, > > Dan. > > On Fri, April 11, 2008 2:49 pm, Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) wrote: >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Dan Harkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 10:38 AM >>> To: Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) >>> Cc: emu@ietf.org >>> Subject: Re: [Emu] EMU charter revision >>> >>> >>> Hi Joe, >>> >>> Thank you for giving me the opportunity to object, once >>> again, to the last sentence in the last item in the charter. >>> If you were to run the following sed filter on the charter I >>> would approve: >>> >>> s/This item will be based on the above tunnel method.// >>> >> >> [Joe] I do not think that removing this line would achieve the goal > you >> wish. With this line removed EAP-PWD is still out of scope of the >> charter as it does not meet the requirements of supporting legacy >> password databases. The message from the ADs in the last meeting was >> pretty clear in that EAP-PWD style mechanisms is not something for the >> group to take on right now. This does not mean that we cannot take on >> an EAP-PWD style mechanism once we have made progress on the current >> charter items. >> >>> What is the process here? This looks the same as the >>> charter revision you made a consensus call on back in >>> January. I was the only one to opine before your cutoff last >>> time and my comment was the same as above. Now we're doing this > again. >>> >> [Joe] There have been several revisions posted to the list and > feedback >> from several working group members that have been worked into the new >> proposal along with input from the discussion in the last meeting. If >> enough people respond positively, such that we have rough consensus, >> then we can move forward. >> >> >>> Dan. >>> >>> On Thu, April 10, 2008 7:26 pm, Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) wrote: >>> > Below is a revision to the EMU charter that is intended to >>> reflect the >>> > discussions in the Philadelphia meeting. Please respond to >>> the list >>> > if you approve of the charter or if you have any comments >>> on the charter. >>> > I would like to have responses by 4/24. >>> > >>> > Thanks, >>> >f >>> > Joe >>> > >>> > Description of Working Group: >>> > The Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) [RFC 3748] is >>> a network >>> > access authentication framework used in the PPP, 802.11, >>> 802.16, VPN, >>> > PANA, and in some functions in 3G networks. EAP itself is a simple >>> > protocol and actual authentication happens in EAP methods. >>> > >>> > Over 40 different EAP methods exist. Most of these methods are >>> > proprietary methods, but some are documented in >>> informational RFCs. In >>> > the past the lack of documented, open specifications has been a >>> > deployment and interoperability problem. There are >>> currently only two >>> > EAP methods in the standards track that implement features >>> such as key >>> > derivation that are required for many modern applications. >>> > Authentication types and credentials continue to evolve as do >>> > requirements for EAP methods. >>> > >>> > This group is chartered to work on the following types of >>> mechanisms >>> > to meet RFC 3748, RFC 4017, RFC 4962 and EAP Keying requirements: >>> > >>> > - An update to RFC 2716 to bring EAP-TLS into standards >>> track, clarify >>> > specification, interoperability, and implementation issues gathered >>> > over the years, and update the document to meet the requirements of >>> > RFC 3748, RFC 4017, and EAP keying framework documents. Backwards >>> > compatibility with RFC 2716 is a requirement. >>> > >>> > - A mechanism based on strong shared secrets. This mechanism should >>> > strive to be simple and compact for implementation in resource >>> > constrained environments. >>> > >>> > - A document that defines EAP channel bindings and provides >>> guidance >>> > for establishing EAP channel bindings within EAP methods. >>> > >>> > - A mechanism to support extensible communication within a TLS >>> > protected tunnel. This mechanism must support channel bindings in >>> > order to meet RFC 4962 requirements. This mechanism will support >>> > meeting the requirements of an enhanced TLS mechanism, a password >>> > based authentication mechanism, and additional inner authentication >>> > mechanisms. >>> > >>> > - Enable a TLS-based EAP method to support channel >>> bindings. This item >>> > will not generate a new method, rather it will extend >>> EAP-TLS and/or >>> > the above tunnel method. >>> > >>> > - A mechanism that makes use of existing password databases such as >>> > AAA databases. This item will be based on the above tunnel method. >>> > >>> > Goals and Milestones: >>> > Done Form design team to work on strong shared secret >>> > mechanism >>> > Done Submit 2716bis I-D >>> > Done Submit first draft of shared secret >>> mechanism I-D >>> > Done Form password based mechanism design team >>> > Done Submit 2716bis draft to IESG for >>> Proposed Standard >>> > Apr 2008 Submit Strong Shared Secret Mechanism to IESG >>> > May 2008 Submit Tunnel and Password Method requirements first >>> > Draft >>> > Sep 2008 Submit EAP Channel Bindings First Draft >>> > Sep 2008 Submit Tunnel Method first draft >>> > Oct 2008 Submit TLS based method channel binding first draft >>> > Oct 2008 Submit Password Method first draft >>> > Jan 2009 Send EAP Channel Bindings to IESG >>> > Mar 2009 Send Tunnel Method to IESG >>> > Apr 2009 Send TLS based method channel binding to IESG >>> > Apr 2009 Send Password based method to IESG >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Emu mailing list >>> > Emu@ietf.org >>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu >>> > >>> >>> >>> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Emu mailing list > Emu@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu > _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
