>>>>> "Stefan" == Stefan Winter <[email protected]> writes:
>> Hi. Over in PCP we've been attempting to apply EAP to the
>> application authentication problem. My personal opinion is that
>> GSS-EAP brings more complexity than PCP needs. Three solutions
>> are being considered: two PANA-based solutions and one solution
>> tuned for PCP.
>>
>> A few issues have come up where the requirements of EAP are
>> unclear at least to some participants.
Stefan> Draft draft-ietf-abfab-eapapplicability updates only the EAP
Stefan> applicability statement (i.e. section 1.3 of RFC3748).
Stefan> I have the impression that the clarifications regarding
Stefan> retransmission which you describe below are certainly
Stefan> related to RFC3748, but are not something that should be
Stefan> mentioned in section 1.3, i.e. the applicability statement.
Actually, RFC 3748 is quite clear about this already.
My belief is that your draft should cover the sorts of issues that
applicability statements generally cover... What issues should an
applied-to thing consider when applying the applied thing.
What issues should you consider when evaluating whether the applied
thing is appropriate to apply.
I'm not proposing changing EAp.
Also, my understanding is that the scope of your document is uses of EAP
within ABFAB's scope.
That is, uses of EAp within the scope of application authentication.
What's going on with PCP is very much within that scope.
So would you be willing to reread my messages in that revised context
and give me your thoughts there?
--Sam
_______________________________________________
abfab mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab
