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

[CONGDON,PAUL (HP-Roseville,ex1) (paul.congdon]

It was both as I recall.  The AAA attribute was clearly not necessary
because of the requirements for key derivation and mutual auth.  Since this
wasn't required, the presence of the key could also be used by the pass-thru
authenticator and thus the new interface variable also wasn't needed.
Someone correct me if I'm out in the weeds.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernard Aboba [mailto:aboba [at] internaut.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 4:50 PM
> To: CONGDON,PAUL (HP-Roseville,ex1)
> Cc: eap [at] frascone.com
> Subject: RE: [eap] Resolution of 802.1X/EAP-SM issue
> 
> 
> 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
> > >
> >
>