Glen Zorn wrote: > Alan DeKok [mailto://al...@deployingradius.com] writes: ... >> Prior to authentication, EAP is the only communications protocol >> between a supplicant and *anywhere* on the network. It is therefore >> natural to overload it as a general purpose transport protocol. > > To transport what, exactly?
The data discussed in the tunnel requirements draft, Section 3.6. Among others. >> I believe that is what is happening: authorization parameters are >> being exchanged in EAP. This should be made clearer in the documents. > > Above you said ... by way of rationalizing "explaining" The two are very different. > the use of EAP "as a general purpose transport protocol". I could have > sworn that authorization _follows_ and is parameterized by authentication. I agree. I haven't seen any proposal that contradicts this. > So, please tell me again why EAP should be (further) bastardized for this > purpose. People are proposing it because they find it useful. This isn't mean it's a good idea, just that it's one that has real-world uses. My message about this topic was intended to foster discussion. If there is strong objection to the idea, we can refuse to "bastardize" EAP. If there is strong consensus that this is necessary, it's best to make it explicit in the documents. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
