On Jan 15, 2022, at 6:12 AM, John Mattsson <[email protected]> wrote: > - The adopted draft-ietf-emu-tls-eap-types and draft-ietf-emu-aka-pfs seems > to be more or less done, very important, and need to progess.
Agreed. > - ACE WG seems to be done with draft-ietf-ace-wg-coap-eap. Would be good if > more people from EMU WG reviewed this before it goes to IESG. I don't understand that one. Reading the document doesn't clear up a lot for me. > - There is a large amount of suggested work that might or not fit in the > current charter. At some point we should discuss if and how to recharter. > > draft-arkko-emu-rfc3748bis I heard significant opposition to that at the last EMU meeting. I don't see a compelling reason to rev 3748. > draft-dekok-emu-eap-usability That's had little discussion. Recent updates to Passpoint (XML config file, pretty much as proposed by Stefan Winter) make it less relevant. But it could still be useful. > draft-lear-eap-teap-brski I have no comments here. > draft-mattsson-emu-eap-tls-psk This needs a bit of fleshing out. If we do PSK / password checking in the TLS layer, then the users identity must be public, which compromises privacy. I'm not sure how this is preferable to TTLS + PAP. > draft-ingles-eap-edhoc That seems useful for limited situations (i.e. IoT). It also has issues with publicizing identities. > draft-chen-emu-eap-tls-ibs I have the same comments as above. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
