Hi Hao,
On Wed, April 30, 2008 9:34 am, Hao Zhou (hzhou) wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>
>> The real thing holding up adoption of EAP-pwd as a work
>> item is finishing work on the tunneled method. Which wouldn't
>> be such a bad thing if we were further along towards that
>> goal after Philly than we were after Vancouver and from the
>> looks of it we won't be any further after Dublin than we were
>> after Vancouver. :-(
>
> I don't think tunnel method is the real thing holding up the EAP-pw as a
> work item, so stop attacking the tunnel method or hurry it into some
> kind of "sword fight." As others pointed out, EAP-pw might be quite
> useful for multiple WGs and should be bring to SAAG. But security review
> and IPR analysis need to be done before any WG is willing to take that
> work, I think.
Let me quote the chairman of this group, Joe Salowey:
"The message from the ADs in the last meeting was pretty clear in
that EAP-PWD style mechanisms is not something for the group to
take on right now. This does not mean that we cannot take on
an EAP-PWD style mechanism once we have made progress on the current
charter items."
And what are the current charter items? GPSK which is getting one last
edit before going off to IETF LC and... the tunneled method! So until "we
have made some progress" on the tunneled method the charter cannot change
to make EAP-pwd in scope of the group.
Let me mention once more I'm not interested in sword fights. Let's
call it a "beauty contest". And it would be really nice if the contestants
would finish their hair-dos and make-up and get into their evening gowns
and out on the runway so the winner can get crowned.
Dan.
_______________________________________________
Emu mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
