(2012/11/16 10:05), Jim Schaad wrote:
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.
What is the exact definition of "GSS-EAP lower-level protocol"? How is
it different from an application?
Yoshihiro Ohba
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
