RE: draft-zorn-radius-keywrap-07

["Nelson, David" <dnelson@enterasys.com>]

Pat Calhoun writes...

> The chair has recently stated that the document above is in scope of
the
> working group, and I applaud this move given there is market need for
> such a solution. Given that the draft is in its 7th version and
includes
> comments generated through various peer reviews, I would like to
> recommend that the chair do a last call of the draft to move it
forward
> in the standards track.

The co-chairs have stated that key-wrap attributes are within the scope
of the RADEXT charter.

However, we have two submissions that deal with this subject.  The
process we have been using in RADEXT is for individual submissions to be
reviewed as pre-WG work items, with issues being tracked in the RADEXT
Issues Tracker.  Once the issues are resolved, and the drafts reasonably
mature, we then ask for WG consensus to make the documents WG work
items.  In this case we also need to resolve which of the documents to
adopt, or whether to merge them.

This is basically an unfinished discussion from the RADEXT WG session at
IETF-63, and it is appropriate that we continue the discussion on the
mailing list.

Some discussion has already occurred.

I would ask that all WG members review 

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zorn-radius-keywrap-07.txt

and

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-aboba-radext-wlan-00.txt 

with respect to the key wrap attributes contained therein.  Please
review these documents with the Housley Criteria 

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-housley-aaa-key-mgmt-00.txt 

in mind.

Discussion of the key wrap issues in general, specific comments on
either draft, and whether one or the other approach to RADIUS key wrap
should become a WG work item, are welcome.

Thanks!

- Dave


--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>