IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [abfab] AD review of eap-applicability

Sam Hartman <hartmans@painless-security.com> Thu, 23 May 2013 13:41 UTC

Return-Path: <hartmans@painless-security.com>
X-Original-To: abfab@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: abfab@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E88CA21F94A6 for <abfab@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 May 2013 06:41:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Oa0rv-c8BuQg for <abfab@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 May 2013 06:41:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.painless-security.com (mail.painless-security.com [23.30.188.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3B0421F8E76 for <abfab@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 May 2013 06:41:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.painless-security.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3D1C2060A; Thu, 23 May 2013 09:38:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail.painless-security.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.suchdamage.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O23Mq7_dChKM; Thu, 23 May 2013 09:38:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (unknown [10.1.10.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "laptop", Issuer "laptop" (not verified)) by mail.painless-security.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Thu, 23 May 2013 09:38:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id C1A59440B; Thu, 23 May 2013 09:41:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans@painless-security.com>
To: yoshihiro.ohba@toshiba.co.jp
References: <51940DB6.6000200@cs.tcd.ie> <tslr4h7g8s3.fsf@mit.edu> <519CFDA2.8080704@cs.tcd.ie> <674F70E5F2BE564CB06B6901FD3DD78B12D10049@tgxml338.toshiba.local>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 09:41:50 -0400
In-Reply-To: <674F70E5F2BE564CB06B6901FD3DD78B12D10049@tgxml338.toshiba.local> (yoshihiro ohba's message of "Wed, 22 May 2013 22:48:58 +0000")
Message-ID: <tslobc1lso1.fsf@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110009 (No Gnus v0.9) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: abfab@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [abfab] AD review of eap-applicability
X-BeenThere: abfab@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Application Bridging, Federated Authentication Beyond \(the web\)" <abfab.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/abfab>, <mailto:abfab-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/abfab>
List-Post: <mailto:abfab@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:abfab-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab>, <mailto:abfab-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 13:41:59 -0000

>>>>>   <yoshihiro.ohba@toshiba.co.jp> writes:

    > If my understanding is correct we agreed that only section 3 of
    > draft-ietf-abfab-eapapplicability updates the EAP applicability
    > statement in [RFC3748].  Regards, Yoshihiro Ohba

i don't recall a discussion of that point, although it seems reasonably
obvious.
Only section 3 claims to be an EAp applicability statement.

We did discuss the use of 2119 language at various points, but those
changes have been made.

The question here is whether an updates header should be added.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email