On 5/18/2011 12:39 PM, Alan DeKok wrote: > Glen Zorn wrote: >> On 5/17/2011 2:33 PM, Alan DeKok wrote: >>> We're asking for input, not a decision right now. >> >> Why not? > > I'd like to see what the WG consensus is prior to making a decision.
I guess the IETF process has really changed lately! I had always thought that WG consensus _was_ the decision & the task of the chairs was merely to determine what WG consensus was. Silly me! > > In addition, I'd like to be sure we understand the consequences of a > change, before we make a decision. > > If the type code does change, then the method name will likely need to > change, too. What's the new name? etc... Highly technical stuff -- I'd put a couple of more years in the charter timeline to deal with these tough questions. In the meantime, I have two suggestions for the new name (assuming that the Deciders establish that a new type is a good idea), just to get the ball rolling: Tunneled Extensible Authentication Method (TEAM, an oldie but goody) and Internet (or IETF) Tunneled EAP Method (ITEM). ...
<<attachment: gwz.vcf>>
_______________________________________________ Emu mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
