On May 16, 2011, at 11:29 AM, Dorothy Stanley wrote: > I support allocating a new method type for the new standard method, sooner, > rather than later. > > The new method is defined by an IETF group, based on submissions/modifications > from multiple parties, and should carry/use an IETF rather than specific > vendor identifier. >
[Joe] Just to be clear, EAP-FAST type ID has been allocated from the IETF type space and is not an expanded vendor specific EAP type as defined in RFC 3748. > Dorothy > > On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Glen Zorn <g...@net-zen.net> wrote: > On 5/15/2011 2:36 AM, Sam Hartman wrote: > >>>>>> "Alan" == Alan DeKok <al...@deployingradius.com> writes: > > > > Alan> Glen Zorn wrote: > > >> There seem to be two issues here: renaming the draft & allocating > > >> a new EAP type. For which one are opinions being solicited? > > > > Alan> Allocating a new EAP type. > > > > My opinion is that we have two options: > > > > 1) Allocate a new method type now. > > > > 2) Revisit this issue at the end. > > > > I don't think we'll be in a position to decide for sure we can keep the > > method type until we reach WGLC. > > I don't follow your logic here. Allocating a new EAP type is, > practically speaking, nothing. > > > > > However we can always short-circuit the issue early. > > The only question I can see is whether or not emu really is an extension > of the Cisco marketing department. One would like to think that the > answer is obvious but maybe not... > > ... > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
