On Sun, Jan 15, 2023 at 7:40 AM Alan DeKok <aland= 40freeradius....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> One of the questions which came up at the interim call was about the > PAC. The discussion there was that PAC support was in hostap, but no other > implementations support it. > > Even more, there didn't seem to be much support for implementing it. So > the question is, should we just drop PAC support from the document? > > There are two good options that I can see: > > 1) delete all references to PAC from 7170bis, and replace them with a note > that PAC is documented in 7170, but not implemented. As a result, this > document does not discuss the PAC. But a future document might re-add it. > > 2) leave the text around PAC in, but add a note saying it's not > implemented, and is untested. > > Comments? What's the best direction to go? > > [Joe] Speaking as a contributor, I would rather see the text deleted if no-one plans on implementing it. This would make the document simpler. > Alan DeKok. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
