Subject: [eap] Re: I-D ACTION: draft-vanderveen-eap-make-00.txt

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 10:16:55 -0700 (PDT)

The IANA Registartion page for EAP Type codes is located here:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/eap-numbers

That page shows that EAP Type 27 has been allocated to EAP Mutual 
Authentication w/Key Exchange (MAKE), on request of Romain Berrendonner. 

Despite this, the IANA Considerations section of this document requests 
IANA to allocate a new EAP Type for EAP-MAKE. 

RFC 3748 Section 6.2 states:

   Allocation of blocks of method Types (more than one for a given
   purpose) should require IETF Consensus.

Since an EAP Type Code has already been allocated to EAP-MAKE, the IANA 
request in this document falls into the "block allocation" category.

RFC 2434 describes "IETF Consensus" as follows:

           Specifically, new assignments are made via
           RFCs approved by the IESG. Typically, the IESG will seek
           input on prospective assignments from appropriate persons
           (e.g., a relevant Working Group if one exists). 

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

---

From: "Soliman, Hesham" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 15:03:22 -0400

> >The Block Allocation option is only available if 
 > >draft-vanderveen-eap-make-00 is in fact a specification for 
 > the EAP MAKE 
 > >protocol that was allocated EAP Type 27 by  IANA. 
 > >
 > >Otherwise, you will need to change the name. 
 > >  
 > >
 > And the third possibility is that if Type 27 == draft-vanderveen
 > then it may be that you are describing the deployed version,
 > in which case you already have allocation and the usual Individual
 > RFC submission rules apply, i.e., no EAP WG Expert Review.

=> Well, you mean the old one gets deprecated and replaced with
draft-vanderveen ? The old one was submitted by someone else
and is not the same method AFAIK.

 > Though of course we'd be happy to run one for you.

=> That would be good. 

thx,
Hesham

 > --Jari

===========================================================
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use
 of the intended recipient.  Any review or distribution by others is strictly
 prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender
 and delete all copies.
===========================================================