Alan DeKok <al...@deployingradius.com> wrote:
> We have "something" implemented today as TEAPv1. Whatever it is,
> it's shipped by multiple vendors on tens of millions of devices. Plus,
> there are multiple other vendors planning on shipping TEAP support in
> Q2 2023.
> We can rev TEAP, but we can't change existing implementations. And
> any new rev will be deployed in the time frame (at best) of 12-18
> months.
> If we document 7170bis now "as implemented", that can be done in a
> short time frame. We then have the freedom to do whatever we want with
> TEAPv2. But I'm wary of not documenting TEAPv1, and I'm wary of
> delaying that documentation in the interest of doing a TEAPv2.
I agree.
> I'm not even sure what we'd do for TEAPv2. There isn't much point in
> changing the key derivations. The current one is arguably suboptimal,
> but it works. I wouldn't see a need to change it for something
> "better" in a TEAPv2.
I think it depends on what we learn about deployed TEAPv1.
It could be that there are things that Eliot wants to do that turn out to be
impossible because it would break deployed code (that he cares about) if done
in TEAPv1.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
