eap Mailing List: RE: Resolution of 802.1X/EAP-SM issue

[Bernard Aboba (aboba]

Was it the *variable* that was not necessary -- or a new AAA attribute
that was not necessary?  As I call, we decided that key possession was
sufficient as Yoshi recommended.  But I thought we had agreed to include
the *variable*, no?

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, CONGDON,PAUL (HP-Roseville,ex1) wrote:

>
> If the updated EAP-SM document is available in a maximum of 6 weeks, and the
> EAP group has agreed that the new interface variable is to be supported, we
> can modify 802.1X during sponsor ballot round.  The last message I heard
> from Yoshi, however, was that the variable is not truly necessary and most
> likely won't make it into the document.
>
> Paul
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bernard Aboba [mailto:aboba [at] internaut.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 3:54 PM
> > To: CONGDON,PAUL (HP-Roseville,ex1)
> > Cc: eap [at] frascone.com
> > Subject: RE: [eap] Resolution of 802.1X/EAP-SM issue
> >
> >
> > Thanks, Paul.
> >
> > The IETF Internet-Draft submission is coming up very soon,
> > and hopefully we will have an EAP-State Machine revision in
> > by then incorporating the proposed fix.
> >
> > Assuming that this happens, will there be time to get a fix
> > applied to IEEE 802.1X-REV?
> >
> > On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, CONGDON,PAUL (HP-Roseville,ex1) wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Well, I'm not sure that is exactly how I read it.  We could still
> > > update 802.1X during the sponsor ballot.  That update would likely
> > > only involve a discussion within the annex about the new
> > variable that
> > > the EAP-SM document added.  If the EAP-SM document doesn't
> > have this
> > > new variable
> > > (eapRemoteSuccess) nailed prior to the sponsor ballot
> > close, then nothing
> > > will be added to 802.1X.   It would still be helpful to
> > have the variable
> > > documented in the EAP-SM document if this deadline isn't
> > met.  The sponsor
> > > ballot for 802.1X will likely run in 1 month to 6 weeks
> > time.  We don't want
> > > to make comments during recirculation ballot since we would
> > have to run
> > > another circulation ballot after that.  We expect comments
> > in sponsor
> > > ballot, so we could slip the changes in there, but only if
> > they are stable
> > > in EAP-SM.
> > >
> > > Paul
> >
>