On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:54:06AM -0800, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>
> I also do NOT approve of the current charter revision, for several reasons:
>
> a. The Charter text contains statements that are no longer true. For example:
> "Most of these methods are proprietary methods and only a few methods
> are documented in RFCs."
>
> The following EAP methods are now documented in RFCs:
>
> EAP-TLS (RFC 2716)
> EAP-SIM (RFC 4186)
> EAP-AKA (RFC 4187)
> EAP-PAX (RFC 4746)
> EAP-SAKE (RFC 4763)
> EAP-PSK (RFC 4764)
> EAP-POTP (RFC 4793)
> EAP-FAST (RFC 4851)
> EAP-IKEv2 (RFC 5106)
>
> 9 methods claiming to satify RFC 4017 critieria is more than a "few".
>
> b. The Charter requires support for Channel Bindings without doing the
> preparatory work to define how Channel Bindings works. Either the
> requirement should be removed, or a work item should be added to
> better define the approach to Channel Bindings.
>
> c. The text on tunnel methods does not provide enough guidance to avoid
> potentially fruitless arguments. So far, the EMU WG has not been able
> to come to consensus on selection of one of the existing tunneling
> protocols, and efforts to design "yet another" tunneling protocol
> haven't gotten very far either. I'd like to see more specific
> language that would make it clear that work on improving existing
> tunneling protocols is within scope, and also that the EMU WG,
> if it cannot come to consensus on a single protocol, can proceed to
> work on one or more protocols with significant support.
>
> d. Password-based methods. While I can understand the desire to limit the
> number of charter items, I do agree with Dan that work on weak-password
> methods is important. With some of the IPR obstacles likely to fall by
> the wayside in coming years, it is time for the IETF to re-visit its policy
> on inclusion of "zero knowledge" algorithms within standards track documents.
> Dan Harkins said:
>
> " Hi Joe,
>
> I do NOT approve of the current charter revision, specifically the
> change that says the password-based method can only be via the
> tunneled method. I do approve of the inclusion of tunneled methods
> in the charter though and would be willing to contribute as a
> reviewer.
>
> regards,
>
> Dan."
> On Tue, February 19, 2008 11:14 am, Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) wrote:
> > The response to the charter revision has been underwhelming. I am a bit
> > concerned that we do not have enough participation to complete the
> > tunnel method work (most of the recent discussion has been about other
> > methods).
> >
> > I would like to get an idea of the number working group members that
> > approve of working on the tunnel method items and are able to
> > participate in the development of requirements and specifications as
> > contributors and/or reviewers.
> >
> > Please respond to this message and state whether you approve of the
> > current charter revision and what capacity you would be willing to
> > contribute towards tunneled method development: contributor, reviewer or
> > not able to contribute.
> >
> > I have submitted an internet draft attempt at an outline of requirements
> > for tunneled methods
> > (
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-salowey-emu-eaptunnel-req-00.
> > txt) that I hope can provided a starting point for discussions on the
> > list and in the Philadelphia meeting.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Joe
