Also, Pascal asked about a patent application. I asked Paul about
that and he said it isn't about EAP-TTLS.
Searching the IETF IPR page, I found the following disclosure, which relates
to TLS-IA, and therefore is only relevant to EAP-TTLSv1:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.
Jouni Malinen wrote:
> I'm aware of at least one, though maybe partial, implementation of
> TTLSv1. Anyway, I don't think it has been deployed anywhere.
I talked to Paul Funk about this. He hasn't implemented EAP-TTLSv1,
is not planning to do so, and is not aware of any implementations
or deployme
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 8:16 AM
To: Bernard Aboba; emu@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Emu] Thoughts on Password-based EAP Methods
Some of the things that need to be fixed are fairly fundamental. For
example crypto-binding and avoiding multiple layers of negotiation are
fairly fundamental. At this
Original Message-
> From: Bernard Aboba [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 3:46 PM
> To: emu@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Emu] Thoughts on Password-based EAP Methods
>
> >I'm not sure that adding yet another version to TTLS
> specifically for
>
I see it a bit differently since I was at many EAP meetings where EAP
method authors wanted to work on standards track EAP methods.
Ciao
Hannes
Bernard Aboba wrote:
Part of the problem with EAP methods is that people should have
started to standardize them within the IETF several years ago.
U
For example, at least one server uses "client PEAP encryption" as the
label for PRF whereas most use "client EAP encryption". That is clearly
an interoperability issue (I've only seen this with PEAPv1 and one
RADIUS server, but anyway that is the label described in some of the
drafts).
Using the
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 10:41:09PM -0400, Hao Zhou (hzhou) wrote:
> > differently.. The main issue for me from the implementation
> > view point has been lack of clear description of the protocol
> > and existance of differently behaving and already deployed
> > implementations..
> [HZ] That's n
Please see inline.
> -Original Message-
> From: Jouni Malinen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 10:07 PM
> To: Bernard Aboba
> Cc: emu@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Emu] Thoughts on Password-based EAP Methods
>
> On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 03:45:4
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 03:45:44PM -0700, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> I would agree that "versioning" is not a good idea. However, as I
> understand it, EAP-TTLSv0 is the only deployed version of TTLS; v1 has
> never been implemented. So currently there is no versioning issue with
> TTLS, and if
Password-based EAP Methods
>I'm not sure that adding yet another version to TTLS specifically for
>supporting passwords will make things better for customers. Multiple
>versions certainly has caused quite a confusion in PEAP.
I would agree that "versioning" is not a g
I'm not sure that adding yet another version to TTLS specifically for
supporting passwords will make things better for customers. Multiple
versions certainly has caused quite a confusion in PEAP.
I would agree that "versioning" is not a good idea. However, as I
understand it, EAP-TTLSv0 is th
; Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 3:48 PM
> To: Joseph Salowey (jsalowey); Bernard Aboba; emu@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Emu] Thoughts on Password-based EAP Methods
>
> I believe there were many issues with how PEAP progressed, if
> we are careful we could prevent the same thing
Subject: RE: [Emu] Thoughts on Password-based EAP Methods
I'm not sure that adding yet another version to TTLS specifically for
supporting passwords will make things better for customers. Multiple
versions certainly has caused quite a confusion in PEAP.
> -Original Message
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 8:07 AM
> To: emu@ietf.org
> Subject: [Emu] Thoughts on Password-based EAP Methods
>
> After listening to the IETF 68 presentation on a
> password-based EAP method, I would like to voice some concerns.
>
> Today we already have an "over abund
> To: emu@ietf.org
> Subject: [Emu] Thoughts on Password-based EAP Methods
>
> After listening to the IETF 68 presentation on a
> password-based EAP method, I would like to voice some concerns.
>
> Today we already have an "over abundance" of such methods.
> Th
After listening to the IETF 68 presentation on a password-based EAP method,
I would like to voice some concerns.
Today we already have an "over abundance" of such methods. These include
PEAPv0, PEAPv1, EAP-TTLSv0, EAP-TTLSv1, and EAP-FAST. In my discussions
with customers, I invariably hear
16 matches
Mail list logo
