I think that the scope issue itself is an overwhelming argument not to replace application with lower-layer. Personally, I would have to think long and hard about given exactly the same advice to an arbitrary lower-layer protocol as oppose to given the advice to anyone who is writing an application protocol that is designed to work with the ABFAB (GSS-EAP) specific authentication profile.
In the ABFAB case we are explicitly stating that these are requirements we are dumping on the application protocol and not keeping for the GSS-EAP lower-level protocol. Changing the term from application to lower-level would change the focus of the advice from what an application needs to do to a problem that we now need to figure out how to solve in ABFAB which we really do not want to do. Jim > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Yoshihiro Ohba > Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 3:43 PM > To: Sam Hartman > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [abfab] Retransmission Text for EAP applicability > > Sam and all, > > (2012/11/16 7:15), Sam Hartman wrote: > >>>>>> "Yoshihiro" == Yoshihiro Ohba <[email protected]> > writes: > > Yoshihiro> Sam, The provided text looks good, except that the text > > Yoshihiro> is generally applicable to any EAP lower-layer inclucing > > Yoshihiro> applications. Said that my suggestion is to replace > > Yoshihiro> "application" with "lower-layer". > > > > I'm really pleased when I hear that you're happy with this direction. I > > tried hard to capture the points you made and I'm glad > > we're quite close. > > > > I actually think this advice is rather application specific. > > Why do you think so? > > > I'd say the same thing for a network access lower layer but my > > emphasis would be different. > > Also, I think giving general lower layer advice in this document is > > inappropriate. > > I can understand this is a scope issue, but general readers of this document > would view the text in the same way as I did, because I believe it is a > technical fact regardless of the scope of the document. I would like to hear > from you and others whether my point is valid, and if my point is valid what > the best way to capture my point would be. > > Regards, > Yoshihiro Ohba > > > > > > For those reasons, I'd be happier if we did not make that substitution. > > I support all of Jim's proposed edits. > > > > _______________________________________________ > abfab mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab _______________________________________________ abfab mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab
