Subject: [eap] Re: EAP methods, EAP charter, the marketplace and the IETF

From: [email-masked] (Luca Salgarelli)
Date: 01 Oct 2002 09:59:06 -0400

On Mon, 2002-09-30 at 16:16, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> > The main concern is that if the IETF (or the EAP WG in particular)
> > is going to evaluate EAP methods, it should presumably know beforehand
> > what to evaluate them against.
> 
> Specifically, the IANA considerations section of RFC 2284bis will trigger
> a new procedure for allocation of EAP types, with a spec and some kind of
> Expert Review required prior to allocation.
> 
> RFC 2248bis does lay out guidelines by which the Expert Review might be
> conducted. But that isn't the same things as describing guidelines for
> standardization, which seems to be what Luca is suggesting is needed.

Right.  I would actually reinforce that: my opinion is that we need both
guidelines for standardization *and* a working Expert Review process
right now.

I think the WG should start working right now, in parallel to the
RFC2248bis effort, on a document that can be used as a basis for
evaluating EAP methods.  I am not sure that RFC2248bis alone can be such
document.

Luca

---

From: [email-masked] (Bernard Aboba)
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:48:10 -0700 (PDT)

> guidelines for standardization *and* a working Expert Review process

The "Expert Review" process comes into effect when the IANA considerations
document goes to RFC. There has been discussion of separating out the IANA
considerations into a separate document, so that it could progress
separately (and presumably, sooner). The disadvantage is that the EAP WG
mailing list will then need to handle the "Expert Review" -- and a concern
has been raised about the workload this could entail.

---

From: [email-masked] (Glen Zorn)
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 15:46:21 -0700

> has been raised about the workload this could entail.

But the EAP WG isn't an amorphous mass only capable of a single task at a
time.  Certainly there are people in this group who have more interest in
new EAP types than the new RFC; why gate them on the progress made by
others?

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

---

From: [email-masked] (Bernard Aboba)
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 15:45:38 -0700 (PDT)

> new EAP types than the new RFC; why gate them on the progress made by

So I take it that you are in favor of advancing the IANA considerations
document immediately?

---

From: [email-masked] (Glen Zorn)
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 19:55:43 -0700

> So I take it that you are in favor of advancing the IANA considerations

I can't see why not, if only in the interest of expediency.