RE: [Emu] WG consensus on charter update

["Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <jsalowey at cisco.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hao Zhou (hzhou) 
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 1:50 PM
> To: Joseph Salowey (jsalowey); emu at ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Emu] WG consensus on charter update
> 
> Joe:
> 
> I am ok with the updated charter, with the following minor comments:
> 
> 1. Should we add crypto-agility to the requirements of tunnel 
> method? 
>And maybe strong shared secret method as well?

[Joe] I think crypto agility is a well accepted requirement, but I can
explicitly add it. 

> 2. Move this paragraph right after the tunnel method 
> paragraph, as it reference the tunnel method above. This way 
> if causes less confusion with the TLS based channel binding method.
> "A mechanism meeting RFC 3748 and RFC 4017 requirements that 
> makes use of existing password databases such as AAA 
> databases.  This item will be based on the above tunnel method."

[Joe] Since we have two work items that reference tunnel method, how
about changing "above tunnel method" to "tunnel method work item"?

> 3. TLS based channel binding paragraph: 
> "Enable a TLS-based EAP method to support channel bindings. 
> So as to enable RFC 2716bis to focus solely on clarifications 
> to the existing protocol, this effort will be handled in a 
> separate document.  This item will not generate a new method, 
> rather it will enhance EAP-TLS or the TLS based tunnel method."
> 
> What does "will not generate a new method" mean? If we 
> enhance EAP-TLS, we are likely need to create a new method ID 
> (the current one doesn't have a version field). Even if we 
> do, likely we will create backward compatibility issue. Sound 
> like the tunnel method is better, so we creating minimum new 
> EAP methods. 
> If we choose the TLS based tunnel method, the 
> requirements already cover the channel binding. Why don't we 
> just make the decision now and say it is part of the tunnel 
> method, or at least make the minimum operation mode of the 
> tunnel method is just TLS with channel binding?  
> 
[Joe] Jari requested that we do not close the door and create a solution
that works only with a tunnel method in the charter.  If the solution
requires large modifications to EAP-TLS then it probably won't be
attractive to the group.  I think it is reasonable to keep this open in
the charter. 


> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)
> > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 12:45 PM
> > To: emu at ietf.org
> > Subject: [Emu] WG consensus on charter update
> > 
> > So far I have only seen responses from Dan Harkins on the proposed 
> > charter update ( 
> > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/emu/current/msg00712.html )
> > 
> > Please respond on the list if you have reviewed the charter 
> and have 
> > comments or if you approve of the current text.
> > Also make sure to review the milestones.  
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Joe
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Emu mailing list
> > Emu at ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
> > 
> 


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