Me too. I like to see a standard based tunneling method, that supports crypto-binding, crypto-agility, internationalization, as well as a standard framework for extension within the tunnel.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Ryan Hurst [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 7:16 PM > To: Ray Bell; Stephen Hanna; Joseph Salowey (jsalowey); emu@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Emu] Moving forward with the EMU password method > > I also favor #2, I like Steve have found customers reluctant > to deploy new methods if we can satisfy the goals with a > method that's broadly deployed (with some tweaks) I think we > will have more success than if we define a new one. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ray Bell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 3:26 PM > To: 'Stephen Hanna'; 'Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)'; emu@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Emu] Moving forward with the EMU password method > > I favor option 2 as well > > Ray > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Hanna [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 12:55 PM > To: Joseph Salowey (jsalowey); emu@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Emu] Moving forward with the EMU password method > > I favor option 2. > > There are tunneling EAP methods already in widespread use > that can meet the requirements with a few extensions (e.g. > EAP-TTLSv0 with the extensions documented in > draft-hanna-eap-ttls-agility-00.txt). Customers are > understandably reluctant to deploy new EAP methods so it's > much more likely that they will use the results of our work > if we use an existing EAP method instead of defining a new method. > > Thanks, > > Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 11:03 AM > To: emu@ietf.org > Subject: [Emu] Moving forward with the EMU password method > > At the IETF in Chicago we had a hum as to the direction we > should take with the password based method. I would like to > clarify the choices and determine working group consensus on > the list. The two directions are given below please express > you preference by 10/25. > > Option 1 - Password based method - this option restricts the > work item to what is currently in the charter. The resulting > method would have a new method ID and selecting this method > would mean selecting a password based exchange that meets the > requirements we already set forth. The method may use an > existing method as its base. > > Option 2 - Tunneling method - this option requires clarifying > the charter to work on a tunneling method which would then be > used to meet the password method requirements. This would > include making sure we have a valid set of requirements to > work with. The working group may select an existing method as > its base and have backwards compatibility as a goal, however > whether the method uses the same method ID and any > modifications to the method will be determined by working > group and IETF consensus. > > Thanks, > > Joe > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
