Re: [Ace] call for adoption for draft-marin-ace-wg-coap-eap

[Daniel Migault <[e-mail]>]

The ACE charter has been approved. Please move the draft to WG document
that is rename it to draft-ietf-ace-wg-coap-eap and publish it.

Our current milestone is : Aug 2021 - Submission to the IESG of "EAP-based
Authentication Service for CoAP"

The document will be discussed during interim and IETF meetings. Note that
discussions are expected to happen on the mailing list, so please keep the
WG informed about the progress as well as concerns to be resolved.

Yours,
Logan and Daniel

On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 9:40 AM Daniel Migault <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I would like to close the call for adoption. As far as I can see, 5 strong
> support for adoption in addition to the coauthors and one objection.
> The objection for the draft adoption was a lake of a use case or a
> description of a specific use case - that requires EAP over CoAP. On the
> other hand it has been acknowledged the draft is expected to ease
> interconnecting the CoAP and EAP (for lower layers) communities. I propose
> we consider the draft as adopted - once the charter will be approved with
> this item mentioned in the charter.
>
> When the adoption becomes official I will ask the co-author to publish an
> update of the document that addresses the comment received during the call
> for adoption as well as provide a careful analysis and description on the
> position of this work.
>
> Yours,
> Daniel
>
> On Sat, Feb 6, 2021 at 4:30 PM Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Eduardo Inglés (IMT) wrote:
>>     > Regarding the writing of the draft, I agree with Michael Richardson
>>     > that it can be improved to facilitate the understanding of some
>>     > concepts. For example, I would rewrite this sentence to understand
>> it
>>     > on a first reading: "EAP requests go always from the EAP
>> authenticator
>>     > and the EAP peer and the EAP responses from the EAP peer to the EAP
>>     > authenticator."  And perhaps it is convenient to clarify in the
>>     > abstract that this draft is a lower layer EAP to avoid confusion
>> with
>>     > the EAP methods. However, I do agree with the authors on the
>> usefulness
>>     > of the protocol.
>>
>> Could you please explain to me a use case?
>> Did you use an EAP method to key OSCORE?
>>
>> Did you do this without a TLS method within the EAP?
>> If you did use a TLS method within EAP, then did you compare:
>>
>> (1)  IP/UDP/CoAP/EAP/TLS
>> to:
>> (2)  IP/UDP/DTLS/CoAP
>>
>> What was your EAP peer to AAA server communication transported?
>> Was it EAP over RADIUS?  If so, how did you setup the RADIUS key?
>> Or did you use DTLS or TLS for the RADIUS?
>>
>> --
>> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting
>> )
>>            Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ace mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
>>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Migault
> Ericsson
>


-- 
Daniel Migault
Ericsson