Subject: [eap] Re: AUPs

From: [email-masked] (Puthenkulam, Jose P)
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:29:42 -0700

I'm ok with not requiring a new EAP method. The reason I suggested that
was thinking that user-network interaction would be required in the
context of AUP.=20

For example if a user rejects the AUP the client can decide to drop the
connection or let the EAP peer make the decision.

EAP-Notification could be used, to accomplish the latter model I guess.

best regards,
jose

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Moskowitz [mailto:[email-masked]]=20
> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 1:10 PM
> To: Bernard Aboba; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [eap] Re: AUPs
>=20
>=20
> At 10:35 AM 6/5/2003 -0700, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>=20
> >a) Since the AUP needs to be displayed regardless of the=20
> authentication
> >scheme chosen (open, WEP, WPA, RSN), it seems like this=20
> needs to occur
> >prior to EAP authentication. In the December 2002 NIST review, we
> >recommended addition of an Information Element in the Beacon=20
> and Probe
> >Response to handle this.
>=20
> Having done AUPs back at Chrysler in the mid-90s (and so I=20
> kick myself on=20
> this too), it takes much more than a flag.
>=20
> >b) If it is desired to transmit a displayable message to the user,
> >the EAP-Request/Identity can be used for this purpose.
>=20
> This is how I see it. Either here or in the EAPoL-Start. =20
> Here it provides=20
> more functionality; AUP is then provided to all applications of EAP.
>=20
> >Given the above, a new method (or any protocol changes) seem=20
> unnecessary.
>=20
> Just some descriptive text about how to implement AUP in your=20
> EAP peers by=20
> its inclusion in the EAP-Req/Ident.
>=20
>=20
> Robert Moskowitz
> TruSecure Corporation
> Security Interest EMail: [email-masked]
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> eap mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/eap
>=20