My opinion is also that the best place to develop standards track EAP
methods is in a WG. We've published a fair number of other methods
through other means, and they have generally been either Informational
or Experimental. Of course, there is no hard and fast rule. But in this
situation I think getting the WG involved would be beneficial.
It sounds like many people are of the opinion that this work would be
useful, but that the EMU WG does not have bandwidth to deal with another
work item. I'm not sure how to solve that problem. Creating a new
working group may not help, because its really the same experts that
should be looking at EAP method documents. But I hope that we have made
a correct assessment that the WG does not have the bandwidth. Sometimes
we restrict WGs to a limited number of work items without realizing that
people's interests to work on specific topics cannot be transferred to
other topics.
In any case, the ability to have a real impact in implementations should
be a guiding factor in deciding to adopt work. I'm a little worried
based on Russ' information that there are no implementors beyond the
authors. Is that one implementation, or several from the different
authors, by the way? Standards track specifications should be
interesting enough for at least a few different implementors.
Jari
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf