Sam Hartman wrote: > I'd like to take a step back and ask why you'd ever want to channel-bind > user-name in the first place? I guess the theory is that your EAP > method supports channel binding but does not have a well-defined concept > of peer ID or support identity protection/transporting method-specific > identity?
I think that situation isn't widely used. > My proposal is that we stop recommending channel binding to user-name > rather than documenting the issues associated with doing so. I would document why channel binding User-Name is a bad idea. Or, why it's useful only in certain limited circumstances. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
