On Jul 22, 2013, at 8:20 AM, Stefan Winter stefan.win...@restena.lu wrote:
Hello,
I didn't follow TEAP's creation process in enough detail, so may have
missed some information. Apologies if what I write below is noise.
I have two questions about TEAP Version 1 which I don't find
Hi.
While I don't mind clarifying the server ID discussion, I don't see that
server ID has any relation to how the peer validates the name in the
server certificate.
Quoting section 7.6:
7.6. Server Certificate Validation
As part of the TLS negotiation, the server presents a certificate to
Section 3.2 of draft-wierenga-ietf-eduroam describes the issues presented
by EAP's spartan support for error condition handling. Although these are
described in the context of a particular roaming operator's experiences, I
believe this is also likely to be true for other non-trivial deployments.
Yes, this document is the main thing on the agenda.
On Jul 25, 2013, at 6:26 AM, Josh Howlett josh.howl...@ja.net
wrote:
Section 3.2 of draft-wierenga-ietf-eduroam describes the issues presented
by EAP's spartan support for error condition handling. Although these are
described in the
Hello,
I didn't follow TEAP's creation process in enough detail, so may have
missed some information. Apologies if what I write below is noise.
I have two questions about TEAP Version 1 which I don't find
satisfactorily answered in the draft. I wonder if they are worth a
discussion.
Q1: How to
The IESG has received a request from the EAP Method Update WG (emu) to
consider the following document:
- 'Tunnel EAP Method (TEAP) Version 1'
draft-ietf-emu-eap-tunnel-method-07.txt as Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on
