Hi Bernard,
a question your excitment regarding strong password based EAP method.
Why do you think they are useful? There are other ways (and they are
deployed already) that can accomplish the same result without going
along the SRP & co track.
Is it because you expect performance improvements or because the
crypto-mechanisms look nicer?
I cannot quite understand the motivation.
Ciao
Hannes
________________________________
Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im
Auftrag von ext Bernard Aboba
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. Februar 2008 21:54
An: [email protected]
Betreff: Re: [Emu] EMU Charter revision
I also do NOT approve of the current charter revision, for
several reasons:
a. The Charter text contains statements that are no longer
true. For example:
"Most of these methods are proprietary methods and only a few
methods
are documented in RFCs."
The following EAP methods are now documented in RFCs:
EAP-TLS (RFC 2716)
EAP-SIM (RFC 4186)
EAP-AKA (RFC 4187)
EAP-PAX (RFC 4746)
EAP-SAKE (RFC 4763)
EAP-PSK (RFC 4764)
EAP-POTP (RFC 4793)
EAP-FAST (RFC 4851)
EAP-IKEv2 (RFC 5106)
9 methods claiming to satify RFC 4017 critieria is more than a
"few".
b. The Charter requires support for Channel Bindings without
doing the
preparatory work to define how Channel Bindings works. Either
the
requirement should be removed, or a work item should be added to
better define the approach to Channel Bindings.
c. The text on tunnel methods does not provide enough guidance
to avoid
potentially fruitless arguments. So far, the EMU WG has not
been able
to come to consensus on selection of one of the existing
tunneling
protocols, and efforts to design "yet another" tunneling
protocol
haven't gotten very far either. I'd like to see more specific
language that would make it clear that work on improving
existing
tunneling protocols is within scope, and also that the EMU WG,
if it cannot come to consensus on a single protocol, can proceed
to
work on one or more protocols with significant support.
d. Password-based methods. While I can understand the desire to
limit the
number of charter items, I do agree with Dan that work on
weak-password
methods is important. With some of the IPR obstacles likely to
fall by
the wayside in coming years, it is time for the IETF to re-visit
its policy
on inclusion of "zero knowledge" algorithms within standards
track documents.
Dan Harkins said:
" Hi Joe,
I do NOT approve of the current charter revision, specifically
the
change that says the password-based method can only be via the
tunneled method. I do approve of the inclusion of tunneled
methods
in the charter though and would be willing to contribute as a
reviewer.
regards,
Dan."
On Tue, February 19, 2008 11:14 am, Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)
wrote:
> The response to the charter revision has been underwhelming.
I am a bit
> concerned that we do not have enough participation to complete
the
> tunnel method work (most of the recent discussion has been
about other
> methods).
>
> I would like to get an idea of the number working group
members that
> approve of working on the tunnel method items and are able to
> participate in the development of requirements and
specifications as
> contributors and/or reviewers.
>
> Please respond to this message and state whether you approve
of the
> current charter revision and what capacity you would be
willing to
> contribute towards tunneled method development: contributor,
reviewer or
> not able to contribute.
>
> I have submitted an internet draft attempt at an outline of
requirements
> for tunneled methods
>
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-salowey-emu-eaptunnel-req-00.
> txt) that I hope can provided a starting point for discussions
on the
> list and in the Philadelphia meeting.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Joe
_______________________________________________
Emu mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
