Re: Review of draft-clancy-emu-eap-shared-secret-01

Hi Michaela,

M. Vanderveen wrote:
> I agree with Lakshminath regarding the point about having actual 
> ciphersuites in a different RFC, so they can be updated.

I don't agree. Why would this be useful? You then have to read two 
documents to implement the EAP method. It would be the same as putting 
the packet format in another document.

New ciphersuites can be added later. They would be in a separate document.

>  
> Personally I'm somewhat disappointed that AES-EAX was chosen, even 
> though it's fame is that is simpler than CCM, which is what 802.11i 
> proposes. Not having participated in the discussions on algorithm 
> selection, I am wondering if anybody have given thought to what can be 
> done to help the power and memory-limited mobile, who now has to have 
> *hardware* to please everybody: the EAP for network access, SAP 4-way 
> handshake for link-layer access, MobileIP for mobility, VPN to sooothe 
> operator concerns, etc, to name a few possibilities. Not all of these 
> must be done in hw, of course. What do the implementors have to say 
> about these?
There was a discussion about this issue during today's meeting. There 
was indeed tendency to avoid EAX usage and focus on CCM instead.

Ciao
Hannes

>