Alan DeKok [mailto:al...@deployingradius.com] writes:
> 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. This thread is not about what is being discussed or proposed, it's about what the charter says. ... _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
