[radext] FW: FW: New Version Notification for >>draft-xue-radext-key-management-00.txt
Xueli <xueli@huawei.com> Mon, 08 April 2013 06:43 UTC
Return-Path: <xueli@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B780421F92E8 for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Apr 2013 23:43:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 lv9ojRyraxB4 for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Apr 2013 23:43:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC91B21F92DC for <radext@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Apr 2013 23:43:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AQD88160; Mon, 08 Apr 2013 06:43:35 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Mon, 8 Apr 2013 07:43:08 +0100
Received: from NKGEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.33) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Mon, 8 Apr 2013 07:43:31 +0100
Received: from NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.50]) by nkgeml402-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.33]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Mon, 8 Apr 2013 14:43:29 +0800
From: Xueli <xueli@huawei.com>
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans@painless-security.com>
Thread-Topic: [radext] FW: New Version Notification for >>draft-xue-radext-key-management-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHOM/Y2F9bvffHn6E21RqH9PziIeJjL0DQQ
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 06:43:27 +0000
Message-ID: <01FE63842C181246BBE4CF183BD159B4482A46AD@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.96.95]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_01FE63842C181246BBE4CF183BD159B4482A46ADNKGEML512MBSchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: Stefan Winter <stefan.winter@restena.lu>, sunqiong <sunqiong@ctbri.com.cn>, "radext@ietf.org" <radext@ietf.org>
Subject: [radext] FW: FW: New Version Notification for >>draft-xue-radext-key-management-00.txt
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: RADIUS EXTensions working group discussion list <radext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/radext>, <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/radext>
List-Post: <mailto:radext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext>, <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 06:43:39 -0000
Hi Sam In most business systems, AR(GW/BRAS) has been selected to perform the Portal/Web Authentication. So if we want to introduce EAP authenticator into a network for the mobile user authentication. For us, it is easier and more efficient to deploy this Authenticator function on the existing AR (GW/BRAS). The reasons are listed as follows: 1 The existing AR has efficient hardware resources to support EAP authentication, so that we can just update the software systems. 2 In many networks the AC is simple and can’t support EAP function. If we want to deploy the EAP authentication in AC, we need to change the devices which is undesired to many operators. Of course, we also believe it is one option to deploy Authenticator in AC. But we want to argue, our solution has its advantage in some scenarios. Regards Li >-----Original Message----- >From: Sam Hartman [mailto:hartmans@painless-security.com] >Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 12:49 PM >To: Xueli >Cc: Stefan Winter; sunqiong; radext@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [radext] FW: New Version Notification for >draft-xue-radext-key-management-00.txt > >I'm sorry, but your explanation doesn't make sense to me. So far I >haven't seen sufficient support (really any support) for considering >your draft. I think that you're going to need to a lot more work in >terms of describing your use case before we're even going to be able to >understand it.