> -----Original Message----- > From: Yoshihiro Ohba [mailto:yohba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 1:04 PM > To: Dondeti, Lakshminath > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [FW: Re: IETF last call on draft-barany-eap-gee-04.txt] > > Even if figures are removed, if text still says that GEE is > not EAP lower layer, that is still incorrect from protocol > layering point of view. > > So, I think that what needs to be clarified in the draft so > that it complies with RFC 3748 is: > > - From functional point of view, GEE provides an additional > functionality to run parallel EAP conversations, which is not > a required functionality for EAP lower layer. > No dispute here. The document doesn't say that it is a required function for any lower layer. > - From protocol layering point of view, GEE is part of EAP > lower layer in terms of RFC 3748. > This is what I said we will clarify as part of the "EAP lower layer and GEE" text in my earlier email. So, seems like we are in agreement. Vidya > Hope this helps, > Yoshihiro Ohba > > > On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 06:15:40PM -0800, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote: > > Yoshi, > > > > We are going in circles on this topic. What is your point? > We have > > already clarified that the figures will be removed since > they are confusing. > > > > Lakshminath > > > > At 05:55 PM 1/4/2007, Yoshihiro Ohba wrote: > > >Let me forward my response with reducing quotes since it > got bounced. > > > > > >----- Forwarded message from Yoshihiro Ohba > <yohba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >----- > > > > > >From: Yoshihiro Ohba <yohba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >Subject: Re: IETF last call on draft-barany-eap-gee-04.txt > > >To: "Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <jsalowey@xxxxxxxxx> > > >Cc: Yoshihiro Ohba <yohba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, > > > "Narayanan, Vidya" <vidyan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, > > > "Barany, Pete" <pbarany@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, > > > Bernard Aboba <aboba@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, > > > Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx>, ietf@xxxxxxxx > > >User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) > > >X-UIDL: `*T"!3ga"!Eh'#!<h>"! > > > > > >Hi Joe, > > > > > >Your comment would be valid if GEE were defined just as a function > > >not as a protocol. As long as GEE is defined as a > protocol, I do not > > >agree with the statement that GEE is not an EAP lower > layer, because > > >in RFC 3748, EAP lower layer sits immediately below EAP layer and > > >there is no shim layer. That is why the only way for GEE > to comply > > >with RFC 3748 is to view GEE as part of EAP lower layer. > > > > > >Yoshihiro Ohba > > > > > > > > >On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 04:17:58PM -0800, Joseph Salowey > (jsalowey) wrote: > > >> > > >> <snip> > > >> > > * EAP lower layer and GEE - Bernard's review pointed out > > >> > that the EAP > > >> > > lower layer transport requirements are not discussed in the > > >> > GEE draft. > > >> > > GEE is not an EAP lower layer. GEE is a protocol > that the EAP > > >> > > lower layer can use to allow multiple parallel > authentications. > > >> > > > >> > As I already commented, GEE is part of EAP lower layer > in term of > > >> > RFC 3748. This fact does not change even if the lower > layer of > > >> > GEE negotiates the use of GEE between the peer and > authenticator. > > >> > > > >> [Joe] GEE is not an EAP lower layer, it is intended to be > > >> transparent to the EAP method layer. GEE does not provide lower > > >> layer functionality by itself, rather it relies upon the > processing > > >> of a lower layer that meets the RFC 3748 requirements. > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > >Ietf mailing list > > >Ietf@xxxxxxxx > > >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf