FYI, EAP-TTLSv0 does not require any changes to the TLS handshake. Only EAP-TTLSv1 does.
Thanks, Steve -----Original Message----- From: Sam Hartman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 11:40 AM To: Tschofenig, Hannes Cc: emu@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: AW: [Emu] Re: Next Steps on Passwd-based EAP Methods >>>>> "Tschofenig," == Tschofenig, Hannes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Tschofenig,> Hi Sam, >> >>>>> "Hannes" == Hannes Tschofenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> writes: >> Hannes> Hi all, before we spend more time considering EAP Hannes> tunneling methods like PEAP and TTLS I would like to hear Hannes> the opinion of our ADs on this subject. So far, the Hannes> working assumption was that EAP methods that tunnel EAP Hannes> are outside the scope of the working group. These Hannes> statements were also repeated during the IETF#68 EMU WG Hannes> meeting by our ADs. >> I at least don't recall objecting to a tunnel method. If >> you're going to do a tunnel method you do need cryptographic >> binding when tunneling something that generates a key. Tschofenig,> I recall that you rejected the TTLS approach where we Tschofenig,> would have to add EAP support into TLS. I am also Tschofenig,> happy to hear that you like providing EAP support in Tschofenig,> TLS. Yes, I reject that approach to tunnelsing. But you could for example use the TLS application record protocol to tunnel EAP. _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
