Lakshminath, > If a type code is going to be allocated anyway, it makes perfect sense > to have the protocol documented in an RFC. OK. > Procedurally, I am curious about the experimental status however, > given that the general mode of operation on EAP methods was to > document the method in an informational track RFC. I admit that this looks somewhat arbitrary choice, and Inf would have worked too. But here's my rationale: some of the other EAP methods that are Inf were truly non-research efforts with a very clear target in the market place and in vendor's products. There's less clarity on EAP IKEv2's role, it came out of what to me appeared as a researcher's interest to see if a method can be defined this way. This is why Exp felt more appropriate, with the experiment being whether this method finds use in the world. > I will also ask the obligatory :) question: > > After the experiment, are we entertaining the possibility of advancing > this work to standards track? We would consider that for any document. I think its somewhat unlikely in this case, though. Again, the recommended methods to use will come out of EMU. Jari _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf