Subject: [eap] EAP WG Charter strawman

From: [email-masked] (Bernard Aboba)
Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 08:53:31 -0700 (PDT)

Discussion continues on the formation of an EAP WG, and the
possible charter for such a WG. 

Find below a strawman charter for an EAP WG. Comments welcome. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EAP Working Group (EAP)

Chair(s):
   This space for rent

Area Director(s):
   Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
   Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>

Security Advisors:
   Bill Arbaugh <[email-masked]>

Mailing Lists:

General discussion: [email-masked]
To subscribe: send a message with "subscribe" in the subject to 
              [email-masked]
Archive: http://mail.frascone.com/pipermail/eap/

The EAP working group will restrict itself to the following work items in
order to fully document and improve the interoperability of
the existing EAP protocol:

1.  IANA considerations for EAP.
2.  EAP operational model. 
3.  EAP Threat model and security considerations.
4.  EAP state machine.
5.  Documentation of interaction between EAP and other layers.
6.  Resolution of interoperability issues.
7.  Type space extension to support an expanded Type space.
8.  Clarification and documentation of EAP keying framework.   
9.  EAP method requirements.

The EAP WG is not currently chartered to review or standardize EAP
methods. However, when these work items are completed, the WG may be
rechartered, or a new WG may be formed to evaluate proposed methods
against the EAP method requirements to be developed by this WG. 

Goals and Milestones

Dec  02   RFC 2284bis published as Proposed Standard RFC.
Jun  03   EAP keying framework published as Informational RFC.
Jun  03   EAP method requirements published as Informational RFC.

---

From: [email-masked] (Glen Zorn)
Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 11:45:10 -0700

>Find below a strawman charter for an EAP WG. Comments welcome.

What is this?  Does it exist?

>9.  EAP method requirements.

This seems extremely vague to me.  Are we going to define method 
requirements for every possible environment (PPP, 3G cellular, WLAN)?  With 
the possible exception of the first (which probably be done in the pppext 
WG anyway), that seems extraordinarily presumptuous.

>methods.

Since this is the main request of 802.11i (as I understand it the major 
driver behind the creation of this proposed WG), I can't see how this is 
very helpful.  Maybe there is a need for yet another BOF?

>However, when these work items are completed, the WG may be

See above.

>_______________________________________________
>eap mailing list
>[email-masked]
>http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/eap