Hi Jari,
I do think that general security analysis on running multiple EAP
conversations between peer and authenticator is quite beneficial for
designers of EAP lower layers.
I agree that it makes sense for IETF to have an RFC on usage of IETF
technology <X> in environment <Y> as long as environment <Y> is
defined by other SDO. However, the draft is also defining part of
environment <Y> where Y=3GPP2 and GEE is part of 3GPP2. Even if this
"experiment" succeeds, I don't think IETF can recommend this specific
GEE format to other lower layers, because there are multiple different
ways of transporting EAP messages, depending on the characteristics of
each lower layer. How to support multiple EAP conversations between
peer and authenticator, including encoding format, is just part of EAP
transport design (except general security analysis as I mentioned
above).
Having said that, I still think that ideally 3GPP2 should take the
ownership of the GEE format and its processing rule within their
specification unless there is a particular situation that prevents
3GPP2 from doing that.
Regards,
Yoshihiro Ohba
On Wed, Dec 27, 2006 at 03:37:03PM +0200, Jari Arkko wrote:
Yoshihiro,
If we agree that EAP GEE is part of a 3GPP2 EAP lower layer, wouldn't
it be more appropriate to standarize EAP GEE within 3GPP2, with
utilizing this EAP WG review as peer review as we have done for IEEE
802.16e and 802.1aa?
I fully agree with Bernard that the work needs to be tied
to the specific lower layer and specific use of EAP in that.
If this was a general mechanism for all EAP uses, it
would require a different IETF process, consideration
of a broad set of requirements from different
usage scenarios, etc. As Bernard points out, merely
turning this on in other link layers would break them.
(We need to work on what the details are for
the sufficient tie-in to the link layer is, however.
The current document is already tied to 3GPP2 link
layer, though based on Bernard's review, in an
inadequate manner.)
However, I believe that submitting specifications
developed outside the IETF as non-standard RFCs
is sometimes useful, as long as the situation
and status is clearly indicated. Typical cases where
such publication can be useful are "Using IETF
technology <X> in environment <Y>" documents
where it is felt that significant IETF review is
warranted (such as in this case), and where
the community might benefit from availability
of an RFC.
Jari
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf