I totally agree, I would hate to see us define yet another tunneling eap method if we could add a couple extensions to a existing one that has received reasonable adoption already. If it turns out we had to define a totally new non-backwards compatible protocol I would agree we would probably be better off starting all over but from my read of the current (expired) TTLSv0 document I dont think thats where we would be going. Ryan
________________________________ From: Bernard Aboba [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mon 4/2/2007 3:45 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Emu] Thoughts on Password-based EAP Methods >I'm not sure that adding yet another version to TTLS specifically for >supporting passwords will make things better for customers. Multiple >versions certainly has caused quite a confusion in PEAP. I would agree that "versioning" is not a good idea. However, as I understand it, EAP-TTLSv0 is the only deployed version of TTLS; v1 has never been implemented. So currently there is no versioning issue with TTLS, and if possible, it would be best if the IETF would not create such a problem. It is not clear to me that EAP-TTLS needs "versioning" in order to enable addition of new features in a backwards compatible way, since it already supports a TLV-based extension mechanism. _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
_______________________________________________ Emu mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
