If implementability of the specification is an issue, my company has an implementation of bootstrapping 802.11i PSK mode based on running PANA over Uncontrolled Port. The implementation works without modifying a WiFi hardware or its firmware. We have a plan to publish the source code of the implementation in Open Diameter project.
Regards, Yoshihiro Ohba On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 11:45:25AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: > >>>>> "Yoshihiro" == Yoshihiro Ohba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > e email discussion over > Yoshihiro> the EAP mailing list quoted below, I had a short > Yoshihiro> conversation on this issue with Jesse Walker during > Yoshihiro> IEEE 802 interim meeting in January in order to > Yoshihiro> follow-up the email discussion and understand the input > Yoshihiro> from Jesse more. As far as I understand, he seemed to > Yoshihiro> agree on this possible interpretation while he > Yoshihiro> mentioned that there is no existing 802.11i > Yoshihiro> implementation that uses 802.1X Uncontrolled Port for > Yoshihiro> non-802.1X frame exchange, but I may be still > Yoshihiro> misunderstanding something. Also, for the sake of > Yoshihiro> completeness of the email discussion over the EAP > Yoshihiro> mailing list, the following email that I sent in > Yoshihiro> response to msg03872 should be quoted as well: > Yoshihiro> http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/eap/msg03879.html.] > > > So, the implementability of our specifications is a significant > concern. If we do not expect there to be environments in which a > feature of our spec will be implementable, then we should remove that > feature. > > Implementability is sufficiently important that RFC 2026 explicitly > gives the IESG the ability to request an implementation report even > for publication at proposed standard when it has questions about > whether a particular feature can be implemented interoperably. > > --Sam > > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
