[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [HOKEY] 2nd draft of new hokey charter



Hola Rafa,
One person made strong representations against the work as presented in the
meeting. On the other hand, there was definite interest in this topic on the
list before the meeting.

As to the second question: one would have to look at the scenarios on the
slides, but I think they are still valid.
 
 
B. R.
Tina
http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 7:31 PM
Subject: Re: [HOKEY] 2nd draft of new hokey charter

Hi Tina,

I have a couple of comments/questions about the charter
>
> 4) Assistance to the 802.21a group in specifying the integration of EAP
> pre-authentication with IEEE 802.21a. The Hokey Working Group shall
> perform
> tasks that are complementary to and do not duplicate work being done
> in IEEE
> 802.21a.
I was wondering what kind of "assistance to the 802.21a group in
specifying the integration of EAP
pre-authentication with IEEE 802.21a" is required?.
>
> 6) A specification for NAS-Authenticator interaction. NAS interaction
> can be
> used to release resources in the old NAS and achieve faster initiation of
> authentication. Related work in external SDOs on authenticator/NAS
> interaction for re-authentication may be taken into consideration.
If I understood correctly from the last HOKEY WG meeting minutes (number
9 in the minutes), the received comment was that this should be out of
the scope of HOKEY, is that correct?.


On the other hand, I do not understand very well what it is the
purpose/meaning of a specification for NAS-authenticator interaction.
That is, I am not sure what it is trying to solve. Now, there is a
change in the new text saying:

6) A specification for inter-authenticator interaction. Authenticator
interaction can be
used to release resources in the old authenticator and achieve faster
initiation of
authentication. Related work in external SDOs on authenticator
interaction for re-authentication may be taken into consideration.

Even with this change I am not able to understand the purpose. Moreover,
does this change imply a change in the the scenarios and goals included
in the slides presented about this topic in last IETF meeting?.
 
My apologies for the questions but I am trying to catch up with this.

Best regards.

--
------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Marin Lopez
Dept. Information and Communications Engineering (DIIC)
Faculty of Computer Science-University of Murcia
30100 Murcia - Spain
Telf: +34968398501    e-mail: rafa at um.es
------------------------------------------------------