Glen Zorn wrote: > Note that while it does say that the enabling of support for channel > bindings will not generate a new method it says nothing of the sort about > the tunneled method itself,
Yes. >> Both EAP-TTLS and EAP-FAST have been proposed as choices for the >> tunneled method. > > Although their promoters have (apparently quite effectively ;-) positioned > the question as a choice between EAP-TTLS & EAP-FAST, I can find nothing in > the charter that actually requires us to take that path. We discuss what has been proposed. If there is another TLS-based EAP method that should be included in the above list, feel free to propose it. Until another method is proposed, and/or a more in-depth review happens, the TLS-based EAP methods that *may* satisfy the tunnel requirements are currently TTLS and FAST. I encourage people to review the EAP methods against the tunnel requirements document. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
