Dan Harkins wrote: > 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?
Portions of any protocol will likely need to be updated. The tunnel requirements draft lists a number of issues that have to be addressed in any protocol before it is accepted as the agreed-upon method. Any *other* changes unrelated to security and/or the tunnel requirements are out of scope. > 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. Some issues are less important. e.g. The TLS PRF being dependent on (client + server), or (server + client) random. Unless there are security issues related to a particular choice of order, the use of one order or another shouldn't be factor in choosing a tunneled EAP method. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
