Message-
From: Stephen Hanna
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 4:00 PM
To: 'Sam Hartman'
Cc: emu@ietf.org; sec...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Updated secdir review of draft-ietf-emu-chbind-15.txt
Sam,
I see now that you are concerned not with circumstances where
the NAS terminates
Thanks, Bernard. That's very helpful. As I said during the WG meeting in
Prague, the IPR that worries me most is that which is not disclosed and for
which no licensing has been offered. But still it's valuable to see what's
known.
Take care,
Steve
From: emu-boun...@ietf.org
Alan,
Could you set a deadline for these comments?
Thanks,
Steve
-Original Message-
From: emu-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:emu-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Alan DeKok
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 8:30 AM
To: emu@ietf.org
Subject: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method
or sending remediation
instructions to an unhealthy endpoint).
Thanks,
Steve
-Original Message-
From: Dan Harkins [mailto:dhark...@lounge.org]
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 3:30 AM
To: Stephen Hanna
Cc: Dave Nelson; emu@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Emu] EAP and authorization
Hi Steve
Dan Harkins wrote:
On Sun, August 16, 2009 9:43 am, Stephen Hanna wrote:
I do not agree that EAP channel bindings are about
authentication. They have two parts: checking whether
the NAS is advertising services that it's not
authorized to advertise and using information from
the NAS
Network Endpoint Assessment (NEA) messages can be considered
authorization data. Certainly, they're not authentication.
They convey information about endpoint posture (like whether
anti-virus software is installed and enabled). Yet they are
carried in EAP messages every day, generally in tunnel
I apologize for my tardy response. I have been on vacation.
I agree with and support the proposed charter below. As for
Dan's suggestion that we not require the password based
method to be based on the tunnel method, the WG already
went through a long discussion and consensus check last
fall on
I approve of the current charter revision and would be willing to
contribute towards tunneled method development as a contributor.
Thanks,
Steve Hanna
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)
Sent: Tuesday, February 19,
I apologize for not responding earlier. I have reviewed the
proposed charter revision and milestones. I think they are
good and should be approved.
Thanks,
Steve
-Original Message-
From: Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 12:45 PM
To:
Here is my feedback on this proposed charter update.
1) RFC 3748 and RFC 4017 requirements should apply to
all deliverables. The proposed language omits them
from the tunneled method deliverable. Please add them
to that deliverable.
2) Some of the new milestones are not clear. The main
Jouni Malinen wrote:
I'm aware of at least one, though maybe partial, implementation of
TTLSv1. Anyway, I don't think it has been deployed anywhere.
I talked to Paul Funk about this. He hasn't implemented EAP-TTLSv1,
is not planning to do so, and is not aware of any implementations
or
Sorry it took me a few days to respond to this thread.
I agree with Bernard that there's no benefit in creating
Yet Another Password-Based EAP Method (YAPBEM). There's
no point in reinventing the wheel for a fourth time and
it's not the IETF way. We're not researchers. We're practical
engineers
12 matches
Mail list logo
