On Feb 5, 2019, at 11:17 AM, Mohit Sethi M <mohit.m.se...@ericsson.com> wrote: > > Purely a personal opinion: > > Tying the fate of one document to another unless absolutely necessary is > not a good idea.
I would say that it *is* absolutely necessary to issue simultaneous TLS 1.3 updates for *all* TLS-based EAP methods. Anything else is a complete and total disaster. > Just look at the RFC editor queue: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/current_queue.php > > There are documents with a MISSREF that were submitted to the RFC editor > in 2014. I certainly don't want EAP-TLS to lie around for that long. Those missing refs are for large clusters of documents that all depend on each other. And for whatever reason, some were submitted for publication in 2014, and the documents they need were submitted in 2019. This isn't happening here, so that comparison is moot. > Modular independent specs are better in my opinion. To be clear, the specs aren't independent. They all leverage TLS over EAP. And software implements the various methods this way. We can't just ignore these dependencies. I'm not saying we should hold the EAP-TLS document until the other TLS-based methods are updated. I've tried to be clear on that. We can publish EAP-TLS updates quickly. I'm saying that the second document needs to be published nearly simultaneously with the EAP-TLS document. Since that document is small and hopefully not contentious, this should be possible. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
