Hi Alan, Once this group gets around to selecting a protocol for advancement is it your view that we just have a coronation followed immediately by publication or do we actually get to update the selected protocol to meet our needs? If the former, then yes, we don't have the time. If the latter, then understanding architectural issues with a protocol that may impact any updating the WG decides is necessary can only be A Good Thing (tm).
It is certainly my understanding that the WG would update the selected protocol (please correct me if I'm wrong!). Therefore *discussing* the architectural choices a protocol made is something we certainly should not discourage as it will guide our choice and, possibly, prepare us for work ahead. Dan. On Mon, January 26, 2009 2:38 am, Alan DeKok wrote: > Dan Harkins wrote: >> A tunnel method is definitely in our charter and we have had much >> discussion on what that would look like. If you re-read the notes from >> IETF 71 there was a long discussion about choosing an existing one to >> update and not necessarily rolling a new one from scratch. The >> candidates >> sure seem to be TTLS and FAST, given the presentations on them we've >> had. > > Discussing the applicability, cost, benefit, etc. of EAP-FAST is a > good idea. Re-visiting its architectural choices isn't something we > have time for. > > Alan DeKok. > _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
