EAP-TEAP support on the radar?

[Joe Garcia]

Alan DeKok <aland at deployingradius.com> wrote:

>It turns out that the TEAP RFC is incomplete, and can't really be implemented as-is.

I was wondering about that, that RFC looks like yet another attempt by
Cisco to get their pet design accepted as "the standard" instead of
whatever it is that's been in universal use by the industry for years,
they have a history of doing this in other WGs as well.  In this case,
for example, the introduction carefully worms its way around having to
justify why TEAP even exists, it states "they all are either
vendor-specific or informational, and the industry calls for a
Standards Track tunnel-based EAP method" and then carefully omits to
mention the Standards Track EAP-TLS that already exists.  In fact the
abstract for TEAP could just as well be describing EAP-TTLS.  So I can
see why there'd be no rush to implement it.

JG.