Subject: RE: Re: IETF53 PANA WG agenda

From: "Hesham Soliman (ERA)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 20:57:38 +0100

[note I have no opinion on what PANA should use]

The question that comes to mind when I see this 
thread is: Do people think the requirements
are done and we're now looking at solutions?

If not, then I think it's premature to say
use EAP or not. Of course there are different 
levels of knowledge in the WG and some might 
already 'know' that EAP will solve the problem
no matter what the requirements are, but that 
doesn't seem to be entirely clear on a WG
level. So why the rush?

  > - Add EAP-slot

=> To say what?

Hesham

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 14:47:50 -0800

Hesham,

The issue that I have and I think some of us have had with PANA is that
doing an extensive requirements analysis under the assumption that the
WG is free to define whatever it wants for the carrier is swimming
against a massive tide in favor of EAP. Because of its widespread use,
assuming that EAP is not part of the requirements is sort of like
assuming that IP isn't part of the requirements, IMHO. If EAP is not
explicitly in the requirements, then I think it should be an unstated
assumption that it will be used. If this is not an unstated assumption,
then I think we had better discuss it and either state it or come up
with some really good reasons why we shouldn't use EAP. If we can come
up with some good reasons then I think it might make some sense to not
use it, but the reasons better be *really good*.

            jak

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hesham Soliman (ERA)" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Paal Engelstad'" <[email-masked]>; "Alper E. YEGIN"
<[email-masked]>; "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>;
"John Schnizlein" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 11:57 AM
Subject: RE: Re: IETF53 PANA WG agenda