Glen Zorn wrote: >> A technical review of EAP-FAST as it applies to the charter work >> items >> is relevant. > > Thanks for the clarification. However, it's hard for me to understand how > the architectural choices of EAP-FAST could be irrelevant to the charter > work items.
They are not irrelevant. See below. >> This WG is also a reasonable place to discuss the status >> of the current EAP-FAST document. However, re-designing EAP-FAST is >> not >> on the charter of this WG. > > OK, great. Just out of curiosity, though, would you mind explaining the > criteria upon which these policies are based since EAP-FAST is not > specifically mentioned anywhere in the charter? The charter requires us to extend an existing TLS-based tunneled method. Hence the tunneled requirements draft. Both EAP-TTLS and EAP-FAST have been proposed as choices for the tunneled method. One or the other may have particular architectural choices that prevents it from satisfying the tunneled requirements. In that case, those architectural choices would be relevant. Architectural choices that are "unusual", but which also do not impact the methods ability to satisfy the tunnel requirements are out of scope of the charter. They can be discussed here with respect to the EAP-FAST documents && the current IESG review, but they should have no impact on the choice of tunneled method. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
