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

[Nick Petroni (npetroni]

I agree the implications of a key should be properly explained somewhere
within the document. This is a fine resulotion to me.

nick

Nick L. Petroni, Jr.
Graduate Student, Computer Science
Maryland Information Systems Security Lab
University of Maryland
http://www.cs.umd.edu/~npetroni

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Bernard Aboba wrote:

> Thanks, Paul.  Are there any objections to resolving the issue this way?
>
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, CONGDON,PAUL (HP-Roseville,ex1) wrote:
>
> >
> > I think, at the end of the day, concerning what documents needs what
> > changing...  We could get away with no changes in either document, but since
> > EAP-SM is still in more of a development stage, it would be helpful to
> > include some discussion around the keyAvailable signal that indicates this
> > signal is sufficient for a pass-thru authenticator to know the remote peer
> > has accepted the mutual authentication (or something to that nature)...
> >
> > I believe we are all agreeing the eapRemoteSuccess is not needed, and thus,
> > 802.1X is not waiting for any specific updates to the EAP-SM document.  The
> > above recommendation would simply help capture the conclusions we have come
> > to...
> >
> > Paul
> _______________________________________________
> eap mailing list
> eap [at] frascone.com
> http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/eap
>