I agree to leave this in, a way to capture work group consensus. NEA Requirement RFC (RFC5209) has similar language.
On 3/2/10 9:52 AM, "Hoeper Katrin-QWKN37" <khoe...@motorola.com> wrote: > For folks not that familiar with the draft, Section 4.1.2 does not > describe existing work but rather recommends given preference to an > existing tunnel method meeting the requirements over a new method. > > I personally agree with that statement but am not sure whether we need > to have this statement in the draft or if a group consensus on this is > sufficient. In general, it seems to be better to have some "proof" of a > group consensus for future discussions, e.g., when some people have > forgotten all about it ;) > > Section 4.1.2: > "Several existing tunnel methods are already in widespread usage: > EAP-FAST [RFC4851], EAP-TTLS [RFC5281], and PEAP. Considerable > experience has been gained from various deployments with these methods. > This experience SHOULD be considered when evaluating tunnel methods. If > one of these existing tunnel methods can meet the requirements contained > in this specification then that method SHOULD be preferred over a new > method. > > Even if minor modifications or extensions to an existing tunnel method > are needed, this method SHOULD be preferred over a completely new method > so that the advantage of accumulated deployment experience and security > analysis can be gained." > > Katrin >> -----Original Message----- >> From: emu-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:emu-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >> Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) >> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 11:53 PM >> To: emu@ietf.org >> Subject: [Emu] Tunnel method requirements: evaluation of >> protocolrequirements >> >> In his review Dan Harkins stated that he feels that section 4.1.2, > Draw >> from Existing Work, does not belong in the document since it is not a >> technical requirement, but rather something that should be arrived at >> through the working group process. This section does seem a little out >> of place compared to the rest of the document. >> >> Since there has been no discussion on the list I am not sure where the >> working group is on this issue. Are people OK with removing section >> 4.1.2? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Joe >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Emu mailing list >> Emu@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu > _______________________________________________ > Emu mailing list > Emu@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu Hao Zhou Technical Leader Security Technology Business Unit hz...@cisco.com Phone: +1 330 523 2132 Cisco Systems, Inc. United States Cisco.com - http://www.cisco.com This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message. For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
