Alan DeKok <[email protected]> wrote: > 1. Instead of servers deciding the EAP method based on the username >part of the NAI, the EAP method could be decided based on the sub domain >under eap.arpa in the realm portion of the NAI. Thus a peer wanting to >be provisioned would use [email protected] or >[email protected] depending on whether it supports: EAP-NOOB or >EAP-TLS for provisioning. Leaving the username semantics to individual >provisioning drafts (example: draft-ietf-emu-bootstrapped-tls) might be >beneficial in the long run as explained below.
> That's a good idea. My once concern is if IANA / IAB would allow for a
> separate sub-registry for the subdomains, and allow EMU to control that
> registry.
I think its an IAB question. IANA with implement whatever we ask for.
It would be EMU's Expert Reviewers that would decide, I guess.
It's late in the week to pigeon hole someone, but ... maybe we can find
someone.
Is a sub-domain the only technical solution?
I'm sure we will need to answer that.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =- *I*LIKE*TRAINS*
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Emu mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
