Subject: [Emu] Tunnel method requirements: evaluation of protocol requirements

From: "Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 21:52:41 -0800

In his review Dan Harkins stated that he feels that section 4.1.2, Draw
from Existing Work, does not belong in the document since it is not a
technical requirement, but rather something that should be arrived at
through the working group process. This section does seem a little out
of place compared to the rest of the document.  

Since there has been no discussion on the list I am not sure where the
working group is on this issue.  Are people OK with removing section
4.1.2?  

Thanks,

Joe

---

From: "Hoeper Katrin-QWKN37" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 09:52:01 -0500

For folks not that familiar with the draft, Section 4.1.2 does not
describe existing work but rather recommends given preference to an
existing tunnel method meeting the requirements over a new method.

I personally agree with that statement but am not sure whether we need
to have this statement in the draft or if a group consensus on this is
sufficient. In general, it seems to be better to have some "proof" of a
group consensus for future discussions, e.g., when some people have
forgotten all about it ;) 

Section 4.1.2:
"Several existing tunnel methods are already in widespread usage:
EAP-FAST [RFC4851], EAP-TTLS [RFC5281], and PEAP.  Considerable
experience has been gained from various deployments with these methods.
This experience SHOULD be considered when evaluating tunnel methods.  If
one of these existing tunnel methods can meet the requirements contained
in this specification then that method SHOULD be preferred over a new
method.

Even if minor modifications or extensions to an existing tunnel method
are needed, this method SHOULD be preferred over a completely new method
so that the advantage of accumulated deployment experience and security
analysis can be gained."

Katrin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 11:53 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Emu] Tunnel method requirements: evaluation of
> protocolrequirements
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Emu mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu

---

From: hzhou <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 10:16:15 -0500

I agree to leave this in, a way to capture work group consensus. NEA
Requirement RFC (RFC5209) has similar language.

>> working group is on this issue.  Are people OK with removing section

Hao Zhou
Technical Leader
Security Technology Business Unit
[email-masked]
Phone: +1 330 523 2132
Cisco Systems, Inc.
United States
Cisco.com - http://www.cisco.com

This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use
of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by
others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or
authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply
email and delete all copies of this message.

For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html