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

[John Vollbrecht (jrv]

--On Tuesday, January 13, 2004 4:49 PM -0800 Bernard Aboba 
<aboba [at] internaut.com> wrote:

> 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?

I don't think we need a variable if the key is sufficient.  Otherwise - it 
seems to me - the remote server will need to create an attribute in 
addition to the key, but based on the presence of a key,  when sending an a
Access Accept - right?


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