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

[Yoshihiro Ohba (yohba]

I think John is right.  The EAP state machine already has
eapKeyAvailable variable to indicate key possession status, which
means that a new eapRemoteSuccess variable is not needed if we have agreed 
that key possession is sufficient information.

Yoshihiro Ohba


On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 07:49:50PM -0500, John Vollbrecht wrote:
> 
> 
> --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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> eap mailing list
> eap [at] frascone.com
> http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/eap