AW: [SECMECH] Desire to standardize some specific EAP mechanisms

hi sam, 

it seems that you already have some eap methods in mind that you would like to standardize. 
can you tell us more? 

ciao
hannes

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: secmech-bounces@lists.ietf.org 
> [mailto:secmech-bounces@lists.ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Sam Hartman
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Juli 2005 22:37
> An: secmech@ietf.org
> Betreff: [SECMECH] Desire to standardize some specific EAP mechanisms 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Comments from the EAP chairs and the IESG suggest there is a strong
> desire to standardize some specific EAP mechanisms probably before the
> GUAM work is done.
> 
> I think this might be doable particularly if the EAP mechanisms
> standardized are things like eap-tls where there are already
> alternatives for other frameworks.  The issue is simply one of timing.
> 
> The original proposal was to do that work in the EAP working group and
> to (depending on BOF results) spin up secmech to do the more general
> work.
> 
> I'm uncomfortable with that work being done outside the security area.
> I'm also uncomfortable with two ongoing parallel efforts without
> strong coordination.
> 
> I propose that if we want to take that approach we standardize the
> specific mechanisms in the secmech group along with doing the more
> general work.  For timing reasons we might even need to prioritize
> some of the EAP work.  I think there are many advantages to doing so:
> 
> 1) We become more familiar with the requirements of EAP and 
> the same group of people doing general work get specific 
> practical experience.
> 
> 2) Since the same group of people are doing both the general and
>    specific work you are likely to get better sanity checking across
>    the projects.
> 
> 3) You make sure the efforts don't diverge.
> 
> 4) You leverage security review experience from the GSS and SASL
>    comnunities and practical deployment experience from the 
> EAP community.
> 
> If we take that approach, two things need to happen.  First, we need
> to get a specific set of mechanisms to standardize early into the
> charter.  Second, we would need at least one int-area chair--possibly
> one of the existing EAP chairs if willing to serve--by the time a WG
> is chartered.
> 
> Thanks for your consideration,
> 
> --Sam
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> SECMECH mailing list
> SECMECH@lists.ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secmech
> 

_______________________________________________
SECMECH mailing list
SECMECH@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secmech