On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 11:03:29PM -0700, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote: > After having reviewed "draft-williams-on-channel-binding-01," I feel > that putting EAP in scope of that document would require a rather > involved revision of the document. As Charles noted it might require > further abstraction of the concept of channel binding as defined in > draft-williams. > > Now, I must say, I do see the similarities between the two notions of > channel binding. But the EAP/AAA model is unique and it is not easy to > map it to the other, let's say simpler, security models. The notion of > compound binding or crypto binding also has some similarities to the > notion of channel binding in draft-williams-on-channel-binding-01, but > there are also some differences. > > Overall though, since expanding draft-williams-on-channel-binding-01's > scope to EAP means that the requirements, recommendations and > suggestions of Section 2.1 may be applied to EAP channel binding, it > would be a rather painful exercise to sort it all out. For now, I am > comfortable with the guidance in Section 7.15 of 3748. My impression was that Sam's suggested text was introductory and informative, and not at all intended to cause this doc to normatively constrain EAP. I think that having a single abstraction that can describe what went by multiple names in different areas can be very useful because it facilitates cross-area communication. And missing an opportunity to point out how two things are more similar than they look would help perpetuate a perception that those two things are more different than they actually are. Nico -- _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf