Purely a personal opinion: Tying the fate of one document to another unless absolutely necessary is not a good idea. Just look at the RFC editor queue: https://www.rfc-editor.org/current_queue.php
There are documents with a MISSREF that were submitted to the RFC editor in 2014. I certainly don't want EAP-TLS to lie around for that long. Modular independent specs are better in my opinion. --Mohit On 2/5/19 5:46 PM, Alan DeKok wrote: > On Feb 5, 2019, at 10:40 AM, Mohit Sethi M <[email protected]> wrote: >> One could use the same argument. Those only interested in implementing >> EAP-TLS will be forced to wait while all other methods are being updated. > Yes. > > Sorry, but that's a good thing. Revving one EAP method while ignoring the > others is a major problem IMHO. > >> Anyhow, I don't expect the other document to take 18 months. I look >> forward to your submission (and reviewing it once it is available). > It should be small. And the WG should be incentivized to publish it > quickly. > > Alan DeKok. > > _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
