On Thu, 7 Mar 2024, at 22:38, Peter Yee wrote:
> The deadline for feedback is March 21st. Yes, that's during IETF
> 119 but after the EMU time slot, so hopefully you will have
> formed an opinion by then, if not sooner. We hope to hear
> from lots of you!
>
> 1) https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/dr
I think this work is useful for bootstrapping IoT devices. I am in favour of
adoption.
There is also a comment.
In Section 5.1 EAP-TLS, " This identifier signals the EAP server that the peer
wishes to obtain "peer unauthenticated access" as per [RFC5216] Section 2.1.1
and [RFC9190]. " and " The
On Tue, 12 Mar 2024, at 12:37, Yanlei(Ray) wrote:
> My understanding here is that the EAP server and client will not
> authenticate each other in EAP-TLS, and all the authentication will be
> done in the " captive portal ". So why recommend EAP-TLS as a
> provisioning method? Just send the ident
On 12.03.24 13:45, Alexander Clouter wrote:
On Tue, 12 Mar 2024, at 12:37, Yanlei(Ray) wrote:
My understanding here is that the EAP server and client will not
authenticate each other in EAP-TLS, and all the authentication will be
done in the " captive portal ". So why recommend EAP-TLS as a
pr
On Tue, 12 Mar 2024, at 14:45, Jan-Frederik Rieckers wrote:
> On 12.03.24 13:45, Alexander Clouter wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024, at 12:37, Yanlei(Ray) wrote:
>>> My understanding here is that the EAP server and client will not
>>> authenticate each other in EAP-TLS, and all the authentication will
Dear Margaret Cullen and Nancy Cam-Winget (cc: emu WG),
As the designated experts for the TEAP Error TLV (value 5) Error Codes
registry, can you review the proposed registration in
draft-ietf-emu-rfc7170bis-15 for us? Please see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-emu-rfc7170bis/
The d
