I need your help. The WGLC on these two drafts has expired. No one
spoke up in favor of (or for that matter against) the documents. Tiru and
Aritra have patiently worked on them. Could I get some volunteers to read
through the drafts and render their thoughts? They are 21 and 13 pages,
respectively. If I don’t get enough inputs for the WGLC, I’m going to have to
rule that we don’t have consensus to advance them via the EMU WG, which would
be a shame.
Thank you.
-Peter
> On Jun 19, 2026, at 7:58 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
> The discussion of these documents has been relatively quiet, but
> reviews to the mailing list and comments during IETF meetings have been
> addressed by the authors. Now the real proof of the pudding will be whether
> the WG feels these documents are ready to advance. So, I have placed both in
> WGLC that will end prior to the upcoming Vienna meeting.
>
> I would really like to see robust responses on whether these
> documents are ready to advance given the relative dearth of discussion
> following their adoption. There's certainly a need for PQC versions of EAP
> mechanisms, so if you believe these documents embody the right responses for
> EAP-AKA' (FS), please make your voice heard by sending a message to the
> mailing list and detailing why they are ready to move forward. Conversely,
> if you think they are not ready, that's useful input as well, especially
> when actionable input is provided.
>
> Thank you in advance for your time and input.
>
> -Peter
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emu mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
Emu mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
