Alan,
Circling back to this.
I’ll first agree with your summary about the importance of the tech, that
there’s some risk but the risk is likely low but non-zero, and that in an ideal
situation you wouldn’t have to deal with this.
However, I would like to point out that
* The draft is an *opti
On Dec 11, 2018, at 10:32 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> I’ll first agree with your summary about the importance of the tech, that
> there’s some risk but the risk is likely low but non-zero, and that in an
> ideal situation you wouldn’t have to deal with this.
>
> However, I would like to point out t
Re: optional but everyone requiring a feature.
I think in this case the “can require everyone to do it” is probably far away
in the future, in practice. Given that Release 15 does not require this
extension, it only requires RFC 5448 EAP-AKA’ (or the bis), this means that
there will be lots of
On Dec 11, 2018, at 11:23 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>
> Re: optional but everyone requiring a feature.
>
> I think in this case the “can require everyone to do it” is probably far away
> in the future, in practice. Given that Release 15 does not require this
> extension, it only requires RFC 5448
