Alan DeKok [mailto:al...@deployingradius.com] writes:
> Dan Harkins wrote:
> > A tunnel method is definitely in our charter and we have had much
> > discussion on what that would look like. If you re-read the notes
> from
> > IETF 71 there was a long discussion about choosing an existing one to
> 2. The following text could be added either in the introduction or IANA
> considerations (or anywhere the IESG prefers):
> "EAP-FAST has been implemented by many vendors and it is used in the
> Internet. Publication of this is intended to promote interoperability.
> The reuse of EAP-MSCHAPv2/EAP
Glen Zorn wrote:
> Alan DeKok [mailto:al...@deployingradius.com] writes:
>> Discussing the applicability, cost, benefit, etc. of EAP-FAST is a
>> good idea. Re-visiting its architectural choices isn't something we
>> have time for.
>
> In other words, no technical review. OK, great, how about
I think assigning a new EAP Type for an existing EAP method with
different usages intended for a particular tunneling method is a bad
idea. Can we avoid it?
Since the Intended status of this draft is Informational, I think
adding an IESG Note describing the issue recognized by the IESG may be
ok.
