Sam, I made an assumption you were going to do a survey of the existing EAP methods and compare them against a set of criteria that the document has outlined.
As an example: outer EAP methods should 1) have channel binding, 2) should talk about TLS certificate naming, 3) setup for mixing key material Inner EAP methods need to produce MSKs or EMSKs and maybe do other things. This gives a quick overview for selection by people of which methods you believe will deal with the problems outlined in this document and which do not and why. Jim > -----Original Message----- > From: emu-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:emu-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Sam Hartman > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 3:19 PM > To: emu@ietf.org; draft-ietf-emu-crypto-bind...@tools.ietf.org > Subject: [Emu] crypto binding: why did I want a survey of methods > > > So, the current crypto binding draft has empty sections for a survey of tunnel > methods and a survey of inner methods. > > Does anyone have an idea what was going to go in those sections? I'm > guessing I put those section headers there, but I cannot remember what I > was going to survey for. > > If there's something we want to collect about methods I'm happy to do it. > Otherwise, though, I'd prefer to drop the sections. > _______________________________________________ > Emu mailing list > Emu@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
