Hi Michael,
I guess the question you are asking is: what is the benefit of adding the
overhead of EAP. For EAP-TLS, you could directly use TLS. For EAP-pwd (which is
a PAKE) one could use any PAKE without the EAP encapsulation overhead?
Is your concern only in the context of IoT or do you think
I’d like to second the question Mohit assumes Michael is asking:
What is the benefit, in the context of IoT, to add the overhead of EAP to say
TLS?
/Ludwig
From: Ace On Behalf Of Mohit Sethi M
Sent: den 22 januari 2021 15:37
To: Michael Richardson ; Ace Wg
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ace] call f
Mohit Sethi M wrote:
> Is your concern only in the context of IoT or do you think in general
> we are better off using protocols directly without the EAP framework
> overhead?
EAP is designed to be used within a protocol, to interact with AAA
infrastructure. Use within 802.1X, and
Hi Michael,
El 21/01/2021 a las 16:26, Michael Richardson escribió:
I reviewed the document before, and my concerns were not really answered.
I can not understand what the applicability is.
Did you check the last version of the use case?
The use case is a bit more ellaborate than the initia
Hi Ludwig,
Basically, to bring the features that EAP has into IoT.
Such as:
- Well known protocol thas provides flexible authentication with
diffrent methods and counting.
- It integrates well with AAA.
- It has a standard and very well known Key Management Framework.
With regards to the o
Hi Michael,
I hope the last email answered your questions.
Best Regards,
Dan.
El 22/01/2021 a las 17:38, Michael Richardson escribió:
Mohit Sethi M wrote:
> Is your concern only in the context of IoT or do you think in general
> we are better off using protocols directly without th
Dan Garcia Carrillo wrote:
> I hope the last email answered your questions.
Are you talking about this answer:
> - Well known protocol thas provides flexible authentication with diffrent
> methods and counting.
> - It integrates well with AAA.
> - It has a standard and very well known Key
