On Jun 11, 2021, at 2:12 PM, Mohit Sethi M wrote:
> The comment here says adding text about "TLS version negotiation". There
> is a comment from you below saying: "I don't understand why it's
> necessary to include discussion of TLS negotiation in EAP, when that
> negotiation does not affect
On Jun 11, 2021, at 9:56 AM, Mohit Sethi M wrote:
>
> I guess you know that there are several implementations of the draft
> some of which are already deployed.
While that's a nice comment telling me what I already know, it doesn't
address my point. The fact that implementations exist
On Jun 11, 2021, at 12:20 PM, Mohit Sethi M wrote:
> I find it odd that you claim your suggestions have been ignored or rejected.
So -16 does address my review from May 6? Could you please go through my
review of today, and point out in -16 where each of my comments was addressed?
As a
Hi Alan,
Response in-line.
On 6/11/21 4:38 PM, Alan DeKok wrote:
>Some comments have been addressed, others not. The majority of the issues
> raised in my review have been silently ignored. Some issues are nits, some
> affect interoperability and security.
>
>Until these issues are
I have suggested repeatedly that the document contain sufficient information to
create a secure and inter-operable implementation. It's not clear to me why
these suggestions have been ignored, or rejected.
I guess you wanted to say that the document does not? contain sufficient
information to
Hi Folks,
I realize that there is frustration with the current document and process.
I ask that we all focus on finishing off the current document so that we
can move it forward. This does require that we consider the issues on the
table. I think we are close to the finish line. I am asking
Hi,
I think it would be good to first make sure that we have GitHub issues or pull
requests for the remaining EAP-TLS issues.
https://github.com/emu-wg/draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13
The more I work with GitHub in IETF, the more I like it, both as an author or
commenting on documents. It forces
Hi John,
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
The reference to draft-ietf-tls-dtls13 was wrote by mistake since version 01, I
will correct it next version.
I'm not against your point of view, EAP-TLS-IBS is based on the procedure of
EAP-TLS, but the certificate has been extended with IBS, so we
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the EAP Method Update WG of the IETF.
Title : Using EAP-TLS with TLS 1.3 (EAP-TLS 1.3)
Authors : John Preuß Mattsson
Mohit
Hi Chair/AD/EMU:
We have submitted a new version of draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13 based on the
extensive feedback from Alan Dekok, Heikki Vatiainen, and Oleg Pekar.
Can we somehow prioritize this document and move it forward? The authors have
received several offline emails inquiring about the
Some comments have been addressed, others not. The majority of the issues
raised in my review have been silently ignored. Some issues are nits, some
affect interoperability and security.
Until these issues are addressed, the document is insufficient to guide a
reader into creating a
On Jun 11, 2021, at 9:08 AM, Mohit Sethi M
wrote:
>
> Hi Chair/AD/EMU:
>
> We have submitted a new version of draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13 based on the
> extensive feedback from Alan Dekok, Heikki Vatiainen, and Oleg Pekar.
>
> Can we somehow prioritize this document and move it forward? The
I guess you know that there are several implementations of the draft
some of which are already deployed. It is of course nice to strive for
perfection. Could you please submit a pull request addressing your
unaddressed comments.
--Mohit
On 6/11/21 4:39 PM, Alan DeKok wrote:
> On Jun 11, 2021,
13 matches
Mail list logo
