Hi Alan, On Sat, February 7, 2009 10:44 pm, Alan DeKok wrote: > 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.
What if some architectural decision(s) make(s) one worse than the other as a tunneled method of choice, even though _technically_ they both satisfy the requirements? Are we forbidden from discussing that? If it comes down to a beauty contest, we're only allowed to discuss whether both contestants for Miss EMU are technically female but not whether one is a gimp hunchback with worts? Dan. _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
