Hi Joe,
I support method 2, with the following remarks
Under VISTA i have found three tunnels methods already supported,
PEAP, EAP-FAST, TTLS.
PEAP and TTLS are drafts with multiple versions. EAP-FAST is an RFC
All these methods use two phases, phase 1 and phase 2
Phase 1 coding (e.g EAP format) looks similar, i did not have
sufficient time to check if they are exactly
equivalent (does somebody know that ?)
Phase 2 coding is different in every cases.
Could it be possible to think about a method with a common phase 1
coding and multiple phase 2 coding ?
Cheers
Pascal
At 20:02 03/10/2007, Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) wrote:
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
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
_______________________________________________
Emu mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
