RE: [Hokeyp] [Emu] Re: MSK but no EMSK

[Michael Ye <yechengping at huawei.com>]

Hi Blumenthal,

see below,

BR,
Michael  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: hokeyp-bounces at opendiameter.org 
> [mailto:hokeyp-bounces at opendiameter.org] On Behalf Of Blumenthal, Uri
> Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 10:22 PM
> To: hokeyp at opendiameter.org; emu at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Hokeyp] [Emu] Re: MSK but no EMSK
> 
> >The discussion focuses on the problem EMSK is optional or mandatory.
> 
> I don't think this is a problem - GENERATION of EMSK is 
> compulsoty as spelled out in RFC 3578.

Michael=>>Really, people were talking about it. Yes,  it is compulsory in
RFC3578.

> 
> The problem is non-compliance. Some, er, people seem to think 
> "the standard says do A, but since I don't use A at the 
> moment - I won't bother."
> 
> >RFC3578 defined EMSK is mandatory,
> 
> And that should be the end of discussion.

 Michael=>> I agree.
> 
> >                     but it is not used at all. 
> 
> First - do you know all the applications that use 
> key-generating EAP methods? But really - who cares? 

Michael=>> As far as know, it is so.
> 
> >If EMSK must be used, it is mandatory. if no, I think, it 
> may be better 
> >that it is optional.
> 
> VERY strongly disagree. Mandatory is what is explicitly 
> specified as mandatory, period. Otherwise many would 
> implement just those pieces and features of the standard that 
> his particular product needs today.

Michael=>>Blumenthal, I think, it is discussions'intention that some
upcoming solutions become better.  people express themselive opinions here,
so different opinions are common.

> 
> (I'm proud of my restraint - not even once using a term 
> "B*S*" :-) _______________________________________________
> Hokeyp mailing list
> Hokeyp at opendiameter.org
> http://www.opendiameter.org/mailman/listinfo/hokeyp
> 



_______________________________________________
Emu mailing list
Emu at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu