I also think this should be done in a working group. Joe > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Bernard Aboba > Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 5:37 PM > To: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-harkins-emu-eap-pwd (EAP > Authentication UsingOnly A Password) to Proposed Standard > > I would like to comment on the process aspect of this IETF > last call. A subsequent post will provide comments on the protocol. > > Overall, I believe that the appropriate process for handling > this document is not to bring it to IETF last call as an > individual submission, but rather to charter a work item > within an IETF WG. > > There are two current EAP method drafts that are based on > zero-knowledge algorithms: > 1. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-harkins-emu-eap-pwd (this > document) > 2. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sheffer-emu-eap-eke > > Previously there was also an EAP method submission utilizing SRP: > 3. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pppext-eap-srp-03 > > All three of these documents were slated for inclusion on the > IETF standards track. > > Given the number of EAP method RFCs that have already been > published, I do not believe that it serves the Internet > community for the IETF to publish multiple EAP method > specifications of a similar genre on the Standards Track, > while bypassing the WG process. > > If the standardization of zero-knowledge algorithms is an > important area of work for the IETF (and I believe this to be > true), then work in this area should be chartered as a > working group work item, with the goal to select a single > method for standardization. Prior to the EMU WG re-charter, > Dan Harkins made an argument for chartering of work in this > area. His arguments were sound then, and they are (even > more) sound today. However, Dan did not succeed in getting > the work added to the EMU WG charter. It is time for the > IESG to re-consider its decision to delay standardization of > zero knowledge algorithms, which was made in the earlier part > of the decade. If the EMU WG is not suitable for handling > this work, then another security area WG should be created > for the purpose. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf