eap Mailing List: Re: New work item in EAP WG??: Questions fordraft-barany-eap-gee-01

[Narayanan, Vidya (vidyan]

Perhaps you missed the earlier emails on this and the presentation in
Dallas? This is not requested as a work item for the EAP WG - we are
only soliciting comments and feedback from the WG participants - the
draft itself will be an individual submission to the IESG. 

Vidya

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1 [mailto:Madjid.Nakhjiri [at] motorola.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 8:07 AM
> To: Dondeti, Lakshminath; Quinn Li; Cao Zhen
> Cc: eap [at] frascone.com
> Subject: [eap] New work item in EAP WG??: Questions 
> fordraft-barany-eap-gee-01
> 
> 
> Madjid>>I am trying to understand all this. EAP WG is closing, which
> means that it does not accept any new WG items? So first of 
> all this WG is not the place to standardize anything new. 
> Second even if it were. To standardize a new item, first 
> people describe the problem, then get it approved as a 
> problem that needs to be solved by the WG (i.e. WG item), 
> then people debate about how to solve it and if there are 
> multiple solutions which one is best.
> Not only I think this has not yet been established as a 
> legitimate problem, but also I think challenging people by 
> demanding an alternate solution is not quite the IETF way to 
> do things.
> 
> Madjid
> 
> With your last statement, are you saying that there is 
> another way to demultiplex multiple parallel EAP exchanges?  
> If so, I would like to 
> read about it.   Please share the reference.  Thanks.
> 
> regards,
> Lakshminath
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
> http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/eap
> 
> Arhives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/eap
>