Re: [Emu] EMU Charter revision

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

Hi Bernard,

Comments inline below: 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: emu-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:emu-bounces at ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Bernard Aboba
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:54 AM
> To: emu at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Emu] EMU Charter revision
> 
> 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". 
> 
[Joe] In addition there is at least one more, EAP-TTLS that is in the
process.  We can revise the section of the charter.  Do you have any
suggested text?


> 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. 
> 

[Joe] There is time set on the agenda in Philadelphia to discuss 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.  
> 

[Joe] OK, do you have some recommended text in this area.  I'm not sure
how one would write this into the charter.  I think this will need some
discussion.  

> 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. 

[Joe] This will be a topic for discussion as well.  We can see what the
level of interest is.   

> 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-eaptunn
> el-req-00.
> > txt) that I hope can provided a starting point for 
> discussions on the 
> > list and in the Philadelphia meeting.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Joe
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
Emu mailing list
Emu at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu