Jouni Malinen <jkmali...@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Alan DeKok <al...@deployingradius.com> wrote: >> The reason for the name change is that there have been questions >> raised about whether this document should be left as EAP-FASTv2, or >> whether it should request allocation of a new EAP type. >> >> Since the document name (individual draft) currently reflects the EAP >> type name, abstracting that would be useful. That way the document name >> will not change no matter what the WG decides to do. >> >> Anyone with opinions either way is requested to discuss the pros and >> cons of the issue. > > I would prefer to allocate a new EAP type for this method and do that > as soon as possible to make it easier to run early interoperability > testing without having to use vendors specific type or experimental > type (of which there are only one) and to agree between various > implementations what to use..
+1 for a new EAP type for FASTv2. /Simon _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
