Alan DeKok <al...@deployingradius.com> wrote:
> 1. Instead of servers deciding the EAP method based on the username
>part of the NAI, the EAP method could be decided based on the sub domain
>under eap.arpa in the realm portion of the NAI. Thus a peer wanting to
>be provisioned would use provision...@noob.eap.arpa or
>provision...@tls.eap.arpa depending on whether it supports: EAP-NOOB or
>EAP-TLS for provisioning. Leaving the username semantics to individual
>provisioning drafts (example: draft-ietf-emu-bootstrapped-tls) might be
>beneficial in the long run as explained below.
> That's a good idea. My once concern is if IANA / IAB would allow for a
> separate sub-registry for the subdomains, and allow EMU to control that
> registry.
I think its an IAB question. IANA with implement whatever we ask for.
It would be EMU's Expert Reviewers that would decide, I guess.
It's late in the week to pigeon hole someone, but ... maybe we can find
someone.
Is a sub-domain the only technical solution?
I'm sure we will need to answer that.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =- *I*LIKE*TRAINS*
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
