EMU, After recent discussions, the following are proposed changes to the channel bindings document. The changes below don't make any architectural or technical changes, but they break up the somewhat free-form text into specific subsections, consolidating ideas and improving the flow and readability of the document.
Section 4: split into multiple sections, one detailing the decision about the type of channel bindings to use, and another that elaborates on the architecture and its implications (with appropriate forward references) Section 5: split into multiple sections, one detailing the protocol itself, and the other describing evaluation of policy consistency (including wildcard policies, use of permissive vs enforcing modes for incremental rollout, etc) Section 6: break into subsections for different system components, e.g. a separate subsection of requirements on EAP method transport Section 7: only define bindings for 802.11, and add a new section that provides requirements for future documents that define lower-layer bindings for other EAP lower layers Lastly, are there any comments on adoption of draft-clancy-emu-aaapay as a working group item? I posted this question to the list after the last IETF, and there weren't any responses. -- t. charles clancy, ph.d. eng.umd.edu/~tcc electrical & computer engineering, university of maryland _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
