> Just below you are acknowledging the need for EAP over IP. I don't > understand how you can still claim you don't understand why PANA is > useful... The framework doesn't seem to talk much about simple EAP over IP scenarios, so I have assumed this is not the major focus. > You are aware that "virtual open-access AP" mode is OK. One of the > two alternatives we proposed had an issue, and the other one still holds. Right. I was referring only to the WPA/WPA2 scenarios. > De-facto? Could you please elaborate how it is becoming a de-facto standard? EAP over UDP is one of the foundation technologies for Network Endpoint Assessment (NEA). As I understand it, EAPoUDP is being made available on most operating systems, and is in the process of being deployed by many enterprise customers. > Besides. Of course PANA is more complex than EAPoUDP. The latter (an > individual I-D) has very limited applicability. As I understand it, EAP over UDP is mostly being deployed for wired access scenarios where IEEE 802.1X might not work well (e.g. multiple hosts sharing a port). > Which SDOs? Please give us more detail. As I understand it, 3GPP2 has considered PANA, and IEEE 802.11 has evaluated the PANA framework document. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf