From bernard_aboba@hotmail.com Fri Apr 1 20:35:06 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7376428C0E3 for ; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 20:35:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.508 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.508 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.090, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aFPakl2xdZHG for ; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 20:35:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from blu0-omc3-s3.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc3-s3.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.78]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15DED3A69D8 for ; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 20:35:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from BLU152-W1 ([65.55.116.74]) by blu0-omc3-s3.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 1 Apr 2011 20:36:46 -0700 Message-ID: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_105a18ab-bdf2-48e4-9f32-f8bc71ec8c6b_" X-Originating-IP: [62.168.35.7] From: Bernard Aboba To: Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 20:36:45 -0700 Importance: Normal MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Apr 2011 03:36:46.0041 (UTC) FILETIME=[31005C90:01CBF0E7] Subject: [Emu] EAP tunnel method disclosures on www.ietf.org X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2011 03:35:06 -0000 --_105a18ab-bdf2-48e4-9f32-f8bc71ec8c6b_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Here are IETF IPR disclosures which may be relevant to the tunnel method discussion: =20 2011-03-18 1519 Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-zhou-emu-eap-fastv2-00=20 2008-12-04 1039 Cisco's Statement of IPR related to draft-cam-winget-eap-fast-provisioning-10 2007-02-02 802 Cisco's Statement about IPR claimed in draft-cam-winget-eap-fast-provisioning-03.txt 2005-10-28 655 Microsoft's Statement about IPR claimed in draft-cam-winget-eap-fast-02.txt=20 2005-10-28 656 Microsoft's Statement about IPR claimed in draft-badra-eap-double-tls-03.txt 2005-07-06 595 Nokia Corporation's statement about IPR claimed in draft-cam-winget-eap-fast-02.txt 2004-02-16 337 Cisco's Statement About IPR Claimed in draft-cam-winget-eap-fast 2002-11-12 96 Microsoft's patent statement pertaining to Protected EAP Protocol (PEAP) (draft-josefss= on-pppext-eap-tls-eap-02.txt and draft-kamath-pppext-peapv0-00.txt) =20 =20 = --_105a18ab-bdf2-48e4-9f32-f8bc71ec8c6b_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Here are IETF IPR disclosures which may be relevant = to the tunnel method discussion:

 =3B

2011-03-18 1519 Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-zhou-emu-eap-fastv2-00

2008-12-04 1039 Cisco's Statement of IPR related to draft-cam-winget-eap-fast-provisioning-10

2007-02-02 802 Cisco's Statement about IPR claimed in draft-cam-winget-eap-fast-provisioning-03.txt

2005-10-28 655 Microsoft's Statement about IPR claimed in draft-cam-winget-eap-fast-02.txt
2005-10-28 656 Microsoft'= s Statement about IPR claimed in draft-badra-eap-double-tls-03.txt

2005-07-06 595 Nokia Corporation's statement about IPR claimed in draft-cam-winget-eap-fast-02.txt

2004-02-16 337 Cisco's Statement About IPR Claimed in draft-cam-winget-eap-fast

2002-11-12 96 Microsoft's patent statement pertaining to Protected EAP Protocol (PEAP) (draft-josefss= on-pppext-eap-tls-eap-02.txt and draft-kamath-pppext-peapv0-00.txt)

 =3B

 =3B

= --_105a18ab-bdf2-48e4-9f32-f8bc71ec8c6b_-- From shanna@juniper.net Sat Apr 2 03:32:18 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DD083A63CA for ; Sat, 2 Apr 2011 03:32:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ewrmS-vtdfxn for ; Sat, 2 Apr 2011 03:32:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og109.obsmtp.com (exprod7og109.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.171]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8C0C3A63CB for ; Sat, 2 Apr 2011 03:32:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob109.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTZb7kgT0XCCShYKAEiUQwKxf57L+rRMu@postini.com; Sat, 02 Apr 2011 03:33:55 PDT Received: from p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.25) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Sat, 2 Apr 2011 03:27:56 -0700 Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::c126:c633:d2dc:8090%11]) with mapi; Sat, 2 Apr 2011 06:29:31 -0400 From: Stephen Hanna To: Bernard Aboba , "emu@ietf.org" Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2011 06:29:30 -0400 Thread-Topic: [Emu] EAP tunnel method disclosures on www.ietf.org Thread-Index: Acvw5zRlVRBqsuYpTCWyU8oVdUeIcQAOV9Rw Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_AC6674AB7BC78549BB231821ABF7A9AEB52F9431E5EMBX01WFjnprn_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Emu] EAP tunnel method disclosures on www.ietf.org X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2011 10:32:18 -0000 --_000_AC6674AB7BC78549BB231821ABF7A9AEB52F9431E5EMBX01WFjnprn_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks, Bernard. That's very helpful. As I said during the WG meeting in Pr= ague, the IPR that worries me most is that which is not disclosed and for w= hich no licensing has been offered. But still it's valuable to see what's k= nown. Take care, Steve From: emu-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:emu-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Berna= rd Aboba Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 11:37 PM To: emu@ietf.org Subject: [Emu] EAP tunnel method disclosures on www.ietf.org Here are IETF IPR disclosures which may be relevant to the tunnel method di= scussion: 2011-03-18 1519 Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-zhou-emu-eap-fast= v2-00 2008-12-04 1039 Cisco's Statement of IPR related to draft-cam-winget-eap-fa= st-provisioning-10 2007-02-02 802 Cisco's Statement about IPR claimed in draft-cam-winget-eap-= fast-provisioning-03.txt 2005-10-28 655 Microsoft's Statement about IPR claimed in draft-cam-winget-= eap-fast-02.txt 2005-10-28 656 Microsoft's Statement about IPR claimed in draft-badra-eap-d= ouble-tls-03.txt 2005-07-06 595 Nokia Corporation's statement about IPR claimed in draft-cam= -winget-eap-fast-02.txt 2004-02-16 337 Cisco's Statement About IPR Claimed in draft-cam-winget-eap-= fast 2002-11-12 96 Microsoft's patent statement pertaining to Protected EAP Prot= ocol (PEAP) (draft-josefsson-pppext-eap-tls-eap-02.txt and draft-kamath-ppp= ext-peapv0-00.txt) --_000_AC6674AB7BC78549BB231821ABF7A9AEB52F9431E5EMBX01WFjnprn_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thanks, B= ernard. That’s very helpful. As I said during the WG meeting in Pragu= e, the IPR that worries me most is that which is not disclosed and for whic= h no licensing has been offered. But still it’s valuable to see what&= #8217;s known.

 =

Take care,

 

Steve

&nbs= p;

From: emu-bounce= s@ietf.org [mailto:emu-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba<= br>Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 11:37 PM
To: emu@ietf.org<= br>Subject: [Emu] EAP tunnel method disclosures on www.ietf.org=

 

Here are IETF IPR disclosures which may be relevant to the= tunnel method discussion:

 

2011-03-18 1519 Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-zhou-emu-eap= -fastv2-00

2008-12-04 1039 Cisco's Statement of IPR relate= d to draft-cam-winget-eap-fast-provisioning-10

2007-02-02 802 Cisco's Statement about IPR claimed in draft-cam-winget-eap-fast-provisi= oning-03.txt

2005-10-28 655 Microsoft's Statement about IPR = claimed in draft-cam-winget-eap-fast-02.txt
2005-10-28 656 Microsoft's Statement about IPR = claimed in draft-badra-eap-double-tls-03.txt

2005-07-06 595 N= okia Corporation's statement about IPR claimed in draft-cam-winget-eap-fast= -02.txt

2004-02-16 337 Cisco's Statement About IPR Claimed in= draft-cam-winget-eap-fast

2002-11-1= 2 96 Microsoft's patent st= atement pertaining to Protected EAP Protocol (PEAP) (draft-josefsson-pppext= -eap-tls-eap-02.txt and draft-kamath-pppext-peapv0-00.txt)

 

 

= --_000_AC6674AB7BC78549BB231821ABF7A9AEB52F9431E5EMBX01WFjnprn_-- From khoeper@motorolasolutions.com Thu Apr 7 16:41:55 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E94A83A67EB for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 16:41:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3iybAkL2nPVM for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 16:41:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail161.messagelabs.com (mail161.messagelabs.com [216.82.253.115]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 257343A67E1 for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 16:41:55 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: khoeper@motorolasolutions.com X-Msg-Ref: server-9.tower-161.messagelabs.com!1302219818!32445353!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.9; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [136.182.1.12] Received: (qmail 14097 invoked from network); 7 Apr 2011 23:43:38 -0000 Received: from motgate2.mot-solutions.com (HELO motgate2.mot-solutions.com) (136.182.1.12) by server-9.tower-161.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 7 Apr 2011 23:43:38 -0000 Received: from il27exr01.cig.mot.com (il27exr01.mot.com [10.17.196.70]) by motgate2.mot-solutions.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p37Nhc9u002542 for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 16:43:38 -0700 (MST) Received: from il27vts02.mot.com (il27vts02.cig.mot.com [10.17.196.86]) by il27exr01.cig.mot.com (8.13.1/Vontu) with SMTP id p37NhbZI026186 for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 18:43:37 -0500 (CDT) Received: from de01exm68.ds.mot.com (de01exm68.am.mot.com [10.176.8.24]) by il27exr01.cig.mot.com (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id p37NhbeV026183 for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 18:43:37 -0500 (CDT) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 19:43:15 -0400 Message-ID: <3A241A6B234BE948B8B474D261FEBC2F08F9C82A@de01exm68.ds.mot.com> In-Reply-To: <4D932235.7050409@deployingradius.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method Thread-Index: Acvu1kxRkMhO3VlUSoeVTCy3nXgzNQGpx/aA References: <4D932235.7050409@deployingradius.com> From: "Hoeper Katrin-QWKN37" To: "Alan DeKok" , X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Subject: Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 23:41:56 -0000 Answer to Question 1: YES Answer to Question 2: FASTv2 Regards, Katrin Hoeper > -----Original Message----- > From: emu-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:emu-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alan > DeKok > Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 7:30 AM > To: emu@ietf.org > Subject: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method >=20 >=20 > For people who didn't attend the EMU meeting at IETF, please answer > the following consensus call: >=20 > Question 1: Are you ready to make a decision on the EAP tunneled method? >=20 > Please indicate Yes or No. >=20 > Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is "Yes", please indicate > support for one of the two proposed methods: >=20 > FASTv2 > or > EAP-Team >=20 > Alan DeKok. > EMU Co-Chair > _______________________________________________ > Emu mailing list > Emu@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu From jsalowey@cisco.com Wed Apr 13 10:50:54 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE940E0871 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:50:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EL0W4Zn87e7w for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:50:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1163FE086E for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:50:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=jsalowey@cisco.com; l=183; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1302717054; x=1303926654; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id: to:mime-version; bh=BgEW0ZO2osWCMJ7pPUELfuhWPRZb0VEctO3A0b5NhjE=; b=d5Fwte+Sx/ZC6cqyMoRnHvpY4ZMDG218QkeGIuWMsZiADNqRnvo5CT/c X2N3guVKjCq/bD6WCHfZSkjiOqak1TmhAVrIzWf3xlgCjZswyzRfoNWys XZVzqOpZaCrIkLXqmutzm4X94lsAf5UIBFzOkBx2/njMbo3u2lQxyHqh0 o=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ar0HACLipU2rRDoH/2dsb2JhbACYZo0zd6Y9nQSFbgSFWogOg28 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,205,1301875200"; d="scan'208";a="336418085" Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Apr 2011 17:50:46 +0000 Received: from [10.33.251.67] ([10.33.251.67]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p3DHokke019740 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 17:50:46 GMT From: Joe Salowey Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:52:33 -0700 Message-Id: To: emu@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Subject: [Emu] Drafts minutes from IETF 80 X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 17:50:55 -0000 Draft Minutes from the EMU meeting at IETF 80 are available at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/80/minutes/emu.txt. Let me know if you have any corrections. Thanks, Joe From zehn.cao@gmail.com Thu Apr 14 19:16:12 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF728E06E8 for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 19:16:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.956 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.956 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.643, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id paWH4DHZHVsR for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 19:16:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B36CE065C for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 19:16:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iwn39 with SMTP id 39so2443977iwn.31 for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 19:16:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=FriSiNAINr9WjDhqiH59FYxqqU/5Rr/pjBv+Xso5ENs=; b=nqzBtu6yBzTfoYVmb/2cUZ0sfC8bD3yuNtgCx4H2JeRM4Nez2QjqnBNIeJ8EzFOG9/ poiXt7cgWkySFnJ3/1eZgjeHVKDVSHw2GjvIgh92Oz9DfM/rOd8vbqRP9H+eKGMuK3JO otvfWoAQNswPCXS8SQmShzVuqcrJblTI+N7uI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=XcL4BfGYgSZ3h7YWTRwOEBm9r1265t+tqKCk37xg2+vd7dk3yzJpP5c81g+n4qWF+R 5woJE+zCLpD7Bv6Q0Gs2nDAy56L+4TIqOA/rp7uT3JAsi+M7ICpa/kMwRvBRFTz3IrAw gzFYiFCBPqX5Oh1h4I70L9ICRyLcqv1K2Ook4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.43.57.144 with SMTP id wg16mr2080188icb.162.1302833758990; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 19:15:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.85.206 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 19:15:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4D932235.7050409@deployingradius.com> References: <4D932235.7050409@deployingradius.com> Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 10:15:58 +0800 Message-ID: From: Zhen Cao To: Alan DeKok Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "emu@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 02:16:13 -0000 Answer to Question 1: YES Answer to Question 2: EAP-Team On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Alan DeKok wro= te: > =A0For people who didn't attend the EMU meeting at IETF, please answer > the following consensus call: > > Question 1: Are you ready to make a decision on the EAP tunneled method? > > =A0Please indicate Yes or No. > > Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is "Yes", please indicate > support for one of the two proposed methods: > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0FASTv2 > or > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0EAP-Team > > =A0Alan DeKok. > =A0EMU Co-Chair > _______________________________________________ > Emu mailing list > Emu@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu > --=20 Best regards, Zhen From aland@deployingradius.com Fri Apr 15 05:55:32 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 882F4E080F for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 05:55:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.524 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IjnhquNKfUhp for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 05:55:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from liberty.deployingradius.com (liberty.deployingradius.com [88.191.76.128]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7130DE0804 for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 05:55:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4DA84041.5000100@deployingradius.com> Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:55:29 +0200 From: Alan DeKok User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Macintosh/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "emu@ietf.org" References: <4D932235.7050409@deployingradius.com> <4D935DDD.8000301@deployingradius.com> In-Reply-To: <4D935DDD.8000301@deployingradius.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 12:55:33 -0000 We had 4 responses on the list, in addition to the discussion at IETF. Q1: 4 yes 0 No Q2: 3 EAP-FASTv2 1 EAP-TEAM The WG consensus is that EAP-FASTv2 should be the tunnel method. Alan DeKok wrote: > For people who didn't attend the EMU meeting at IETF, please answer > the following consensus call: > > Question 1: Are you ready to make a decision on the EAP tunneled method? > > Please indicate Yes or No. > > Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is "Yes", please indicate > support for one of the two proposed methods: > > FASTv2 > or > EAP-Team > ... > Thursday April 14. That gives us 2 weeks, which is usual for a > consensus call. From khoeper@motorolasolutions.com Fri Apr 15 07:11:31 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2D6CE0705 for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 07:11:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ub-jsKJYVOkj for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 07:11:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail161.messagelabs.com (mail161.messagelabs.com [216.82.253.115]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2385E069A for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 07:11:26 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: khoeper@motorolasolutions.com X-Msg-Ref: server-4.tower-161.messagelabs.com!1302876683!37204756!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.9; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [136.182.1.13] Received: (qmail 14745 invoked from network); 15 Apr 2011 14:11:24 -0000 Received: from motgate3.mot-solutions.com (HELO motgate3.mot-solutions.com) (136.182.1.13) by server-4.tower-161.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 15 Apr 2011 14:11:24 -0000 Received: from il27exr03.cig.mot.com (il27exr03.mot.com [10.17.196.72]) by motgate3.mot-solutions.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p3FEBNZD014943 for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 07:11:23 -0700 (MST) Received: from il27vts02.mot.com (il27vts02.cig.mot.com [10.17.196.86]) by il27exr03.cig.mot.com (8.13.1/Vontu) with SMTP id p3FEBNAq012420 for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 09:11:23 -0500 (CDT) Received: from de01exm68.ds.mot.com (de01exm68.am.mot.com [10.176.8.24]) by il27exr03.cig.mot.com (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id p3FEAMbg011462 for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 09:10:23 -0500 (CDT) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 10:10:00 -0400 Message-ID: <3A241A6B234BE948B8B474D261FEBC2F08FF2F1B@de01exm68.ds.mot.com> In-Reply-To: <4DA84041.5000100@deployingradius.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method Thread-Index: Acv7bG0hSzlc8N94TEeYpguHYhYRXQACkU+Q References: <4D932235.7050409@deployingradius.com> <4D935DDD.8000301@deployingradius.com> <4DA84041.5000100@deployingradius.com> From: "Hoeper Katrin-QWKN37" To: "Alan DeKok" , X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Subject: Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:11:32 -0000 I counted five responses: Q1: 5 yes 0 no Q2: 3 EAP-FASTv2 2 EAP-TEAM Katrin > -----Original Message----- > From: emu-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:emu-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alan > DeKok > Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 7:55 AM > To: emu@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method >=20 >=20 > We had 4 responses on the list, in addition to the discussion at IETF. >=20 > Q1: 4 yes > 0 No >=20 > Q2: 3 EAP-FASTv2 > 1 EAP-TEAM >=20 > The WG consensus is that EAP-FASTv2 should be the tunnel method. >=20 > Alan DeKok wrote: > > For people who didn't attend the EMU meeting at IETF, please answer > > the following consensus call: > > > > Question 1: Are you ready to make a decision on the EAP tunneled method? > > > > Please indicate Yes or No. > > > > Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is "Yes", please indicate > > support for one of the two proposed methods: > > > > FASTv2 > > or > > EAP-Team > > > ... > > Thursday April 14. That gives us 2 weeks, which is usual for a > > consensus call. >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Emu mailing list > Emu@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu From dharkins@lounge.org Fri Apr 15 09:41:15 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04707E0714 for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 09:41:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.265 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9jezF79MNUdE for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 09:41:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from colo.trepanning.net (colo.trepanning.net [69.55.226.174]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B23C7E06BA for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 09:41:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.trepanning.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by colo.trepanning.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8D0B1022404C; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 09:41:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 69.12.173.8 (SquirrelMail authenticated user dharkins@lounge.org) by www.trepanning.net with HTTP; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 09:41:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <3A241A6B234BE948B8B474D261FEBC2F08FF2F1B@de01exm68.ds.mot.com> References: <4D932235.7050409@deployingradius.com> <4D935DDD.8000301@deployingradius.com> <4DA84041.5000100@deployingradius.com> <3A241A6B234BE948B8B474D261FEBC2F08FF2F1B@de01exm68.ds.mot.com> Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 09:41:09 -0700 (PDT) From: "Dan Harkins" To: "Hoeper Katrin-QWKN37" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.14 [SVN] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Cc: emu@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 16:41:15 -0000 Rough consensus people, rough consensus. How about if our esteemed co-chairmen go behind closed doors and burn some paper. White smoke means TEAM, black smoke means FAST. Dan. On Fri, April 15, 2011 7:10 am, Hoeper Katrin-QWKN37 wrote: > I counted five responses: > > Q1: 5 yes > 0 no > > Q2: 3 EAP-FASTv2 > 2 EAP-TEAM > > Katrin > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: emu-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:emu-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Alan >> DeKok >> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 7:55 AM >> To: emu@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method >> >> >> We had 4 responses on the list, in addition to the discussion at > IETF. >> >> Q1: 4 yes >> 0 No >> >> Q2: 3 EAP-FASTv2 >> 1 EAP-TEAM >> >> The WG consensus is that EAP-FASTv2 should be the tunnel method. >> >> Alan DeKok wrote: >> > For people who didn't attend the EMU meeting at IETF, please answer >> > the following consensus call: >> > >> > Question 1: Are you ready to make a decision on the EAP tunneled > method? >> > >> > Please indicate Yes or No. >> > >> > Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is "Yes", please indicate >> > support for one of the two proposed methods: >> > >> > FASTv2 >> > or >> > EAP-Team >> > >> ... >> > Thursday April 14. That gives us 2 weeks, which is usual for a >> > consensus call. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Emu mailing list >> Emu@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu > _______________________________________________ > Emu mailing list > Emu@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu > From shanna@juniper.net Fri Apr 15 12:23:27 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0BD6E07DA for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 12:23:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SFV6QQPVESQh for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 12:23:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og104.obsmtp.com (exprod7og104.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.161]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F473E0927 for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 12:23:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob104.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTaibKisliDuNaPKvBNhVcVcFSUG4xrje@postini.com; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 12:23:26 PDT Received: from p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.24) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 12:19:38 -0700 Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::d0d1:653d:5b91:a123%11]) with mapi; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 15:21:36 -0400 From: Stephen Hanna To: Hoeper Katrin-QWKN37 , Alan DeKok , "emu@ietf.org" Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 15:21:34 -0400 Thread-Topic: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method Thread-Index: Acv7bG0hSzlc8N94TEeYpguHYhYRXQACkU+QAAq+JbA= Message-ID: References: <4D932235.7050409@deployingradius.com> <4D935DDD.8000301@deployingradius.com> <4DA84041.5000100@deployingradius.com> <3A241A6B234BE948B8B474D261FEBC2F08FF2F1B@de01exm68.ds.mot.com> In-Reply-To: <3A241A6B234BE948B8B474D261FEBC2F08FF2F1B@de01exm68.ds.mot.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 19:23:28 -0000 I agree with Katrin's count for the email poll. When combined with the count from the meeting in Prague (since Alan asked for only folks who didn't attend the EMU WG meeting in Prague), I think the total is 12 for EAP-FASTv2 and 5 for EAP-TEAM. Thanks, Steve > -----Original Message----- > From: emu-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:emu-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Hoeper Katrin-QWKN37 > Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 10:10 AM > To: Alan DeKok; emu@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method >=20 > I counted five responses: >=20 > Q1: 5 yes > 0 no >=20 > Q2: 3 EAP-FASTv2 > 2 EAP-TEAM >=20 > Katrin >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: emu-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:emu-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Alan > > DeKok > > Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 7:55 AM > > To: emu@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method > > > > > > We had 4 responses on the list, in addition to the discussion at > IETF. > > > > Q1: 4 yes > > 0 No > > > > Q2: 3 EAP-FASTv2 > > 1 EAP-TEAM > > > > The WG consensus is that EAP-FASTv2 should be the tunnel method. > > > > Alan DeKok wrote: > > > For people who didn't attend the EMU meeting at IETF, please answer > > > the following consensus call: > > > > > > Question 1: Are you ready to make a decision on the EAP tunneled > method? > > > > > > Please indicate Yes or No. > > > > > > Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is "Yes", please indicate > > > support for one of the two proposed methods: > > > > > > FASTv2 > > > or > > > EAP-Team > > > > > ... > > > Thursday April 14. That gives us 2 weeks, which is usual for a > > > consensus call. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Emu mailing list > > Emu@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu > _______________________________________________ > Emu mailing list > Emu@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu From aland@deployingradius.com Fri Apr 15 23:25:11 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CDE0E0682 for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 23:25:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.539 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v-x3wjPOZooO for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 23:25:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from liberty.deployingradius.com (liberty.deployingradius.com [88.191.76.128]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DAE0E0677 for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 23:25:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4DA93644.3060301@deployingradius.com> Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 08:25:08 +0200 From: Alan DeKok User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Macintosh/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Hanna References: <4D932235.7050409@deployingradius.com> <4D935DDD.8000301@deployingradius.com> <4DA84041.5000100@deployingradius.com> <3A241A6B234BE948B8B474D261FEBC2F08FF2F1B@de01exm68.ds.mot.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "emu@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 06:25:11 -0000 Stephen Hanna wrote: > I agree with Katrin's count for the email poll. When combined > with the count from the meeting in Prague (since Alan asked > for only folks who didn't attend the EMU WG meeting in Prague), > I think the total is 12 for EAP-FASTv2 and 5 for EAP-TEAM. I've gone back and reviewed my EMU folder, and Katrin is correct. Sorry for the miscount. As you not, this does not change the rough consensus of the WG, where the majority at IETF supported FASTv2. Alan DeKok. From gwz@net-zen.net Sun Apr 17 22:37:18 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8B9DE0660 for ; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 22:37:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rdUdHTGGZcDJ for ; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 22:37:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p3plsmtpa01-08.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtpa01-08.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [72.167.82.88]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4D835E0655 for ; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 22:37:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 13660 invoked from network); 18 Apr 2011 05:37:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (124.120.180.55) by p3plsmtpa01-08.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (72.167.82.88) with ESMTP; 18 Apr 2011 05:37:11 -0000 Message-ID: <4DABCE02.9020303@net-zen.net> Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 12:37:06 +0700 From: Glen Zorn Organization: Network Zen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alan DeKok References: <4D932235.7050409@deployingradius.com> <4D935DDD.8000301@deployingradius.com> <4DA84041.5000100@deployingradius.com> In-Reply-To: <4DA84041.5000100@deployingradius.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------020406070403010207020808" Cc: "emu@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 05:37:18 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020406070403010207020808 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 4/15/2011 7:55 PM, Alan DeKok wrote: > We had 4 responses on the list, in addition to the discussion at IETF. > > Q1: 4 yes > 0 No > > Q2: 3 EAP-FASTv2 > 1 EAP-TEAM I think that you should trying counting again. > > The WG consensus is that EAP-FASTv2 should be the tunnel method. > > Alan DeKok wrote: >> For people who didn't attend the EMU meeting at IETF, please answer >> the following consensus call: >> >> Question 1: Are you ready to make a decision on the EAP tunneled method? >> >> Please indicate Yes or No. >> >> Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is "Yes", please indicate >> support for one of the two proposed methods: >> >> FASTv2 >> or >> EAP-Team >> > ... >> Thursday April 14. That gives us 2 weeks, which is usual for a >> consensus call. > > _______________________________________________ > Emu mailing list > Emu@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu > > --------------020406070403010207020808 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8; name="gwz.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="gwz.vcf" begin:vcard fn:Glen Zorn n:Zorn;Glen org:Network Zen adr:;;;Seattle;WA;;USA email;internet:gwz@net-zen.net tel;cell:+66 87 040 4617 note:PGP Key Fingerprint: DAD3 F5D3 ACE6 4195 9C5C 2EE1 6E17 B5F6 5953 B45F version:2.1 end:vcard --------------020406070403010207020808-- From gwz@net-zen.net Sun Apr 17 22:57:38 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CF43E068B for ; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 22:57:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ydKeG0djlnrq for ; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 22:57:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpauth02.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (smtpauth02.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net [64.202.165.182]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 323C0E0699 for ; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 22:57:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 21402 invoked from network); 18 Apr 2011 05:57:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (124.120.180.55) by smtpauth02.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.182) with ESMTP; 18 Apr 2011 05:57:24 -0000 Message-ID: <4DABD2C0.9050606@net-zen.net> Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 12:57:20 +0700 From: Glen Zorn Organization: Network Zen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dan Harkins References: <4D932235.7050409@deployingradius.com> <4D935DDD.8000301@deployingradius.com> <4DA84041.5000100@deployingradius.com> <3A241A6B234BE948B8B474D261FEBC2F08FF2F1B@de01exm68.ds.mot.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------010403020505060801020009" Cc: emu@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 05:57:38 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------010403020505060801020009 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 4/15/2011 11:41 PM, Dan Harkins wrote: > > Rough consensus people, rough consensus. ??? If you're going to go to the trouble of publishing a vote count, you might at least try to make it accurate. > How about if our esteemed > co-chairmen go behind closed doors and burn some paper. White smoke > means TEAM, black smoke means FAST. > > Dan. > > On Fri, April 15, 2011 7:10 am, Hoeper Katrin-QWKN37 wrote: >> I counted five responses: >> >> Q1: 5 yes >> 0 no >> >> Q2: 3 EAP-FASTv2 >> 2 EAP-TEAM >> >> Katrin >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: emu-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:emu-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >> Alan >>> DeKok >>> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 7:55 AM >>> To: emu@ietf.org >>> Subject: Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method >>> >>> >>> We had 4 responses on the list, in addition to the discussion at >> IETF. >>> >>> Q1: 4 yes >>> 0 No >>> >>> Q2: 3 EAP-FASTv2 >>> 1 EAP-TEAM >>> >>> The WG consensus is that EAP-FASTv2 should be the tunnel method. >>> >>> Alan DeKok wrote: >>>> For people who didn't attend the EMU meeting at IETF, please answer >>>> the following consensus call: >>>> >>>> Question 1: Are you ready to make a decision on the EAP tunneled >> method? >>>> >>>> Please indicate Yes or No. >>>> >>>> Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is "Yes", please indicate >>>> support for one of the two proposed methods: >>>> >>>> FASTv2 >>>> or >>>> EAP-Team >>>> >>> ... >>>> Thursday April 14. That gives us 2 weeks, which is usual for a >>>> consensus call. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Emu mailing list >>> Emu@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu >> _______________________________________________ >> Emu mailing list >> Emu@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Emu mailing list > Emu@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu > > --------------010403020505060801020009 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8; name="gwz.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="gwz.vcf" begin:vcard fn:Glen Zorn n:Zorn;Glen org:Network Zen adr:;;;Seattle;WA;;USA email;internet:gwz@net-zen.net tel;cell:+66 87 040 4617 note:PGP Key Fingerprint: DAD3 F5D3 ACE6 4195 9C5C 2EE1 6E17 B5F6 5953 B45F version:2.1 end:vcard --------------010403020505060801020009-- From gwz@net-zen.net Sun Apr 17 23:10:19 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A07BFE06BA for ; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 23:10:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M79Fw-ao34Rc for ; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 23:10:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p3plsmtpa07-04.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtpa07-04.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [173.201.192.233]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E21B5E0680 for ; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 23:10:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 11608 invoked from network); 18 Apr 2011 06:10:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (124.120.180.55) by p3plsmtpa07-04.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (173.201.192.233) with ESMTP; 18 Apr 2011 06:10:13 -0000 Message-ID: <4DABD5C1.2080606@net-zen.net> Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:10:09 +0700 From: Glen Zorn Organization: Network Zen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Hanna References: <4D932235.7050409@deployingradius.com> <4D935DDD.8000301@deployingradius.com> <4DA84041.5000100@deployingradius.com> <3A241A6B234BE948B8B474D261FEBC2F08FF2F1B@de01exm68.ds.mot.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------050005080806030905030801" Cc: "emu@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 06:10:19 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------050005080806030905030801 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 4/16/2011 2:21 AM, Stephen Hanna wrote: > I agree with Katrin's count for the email poll. When combined > with the count from the meeting in Prague (since Alan asked > for only folks who didn't attend the EMU WG meeting in Prague), Based upon a policy that was AFAICT created out of thin air by Bernard, who has AFAICT zero official status in emu (but, OTOH, _has_ evinced the ability to count). > I think the total is 12 for EAP-FASTv2 and 5 for EAP-TEAM. > > Thanks, > > Steve > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: emu-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:emu-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >> Hoeper Katrin-QWKN37 >> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 10:10 AM >> To: Alan DeKok; emu@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method >> >> I counted five responses: >> >> Q1: 5 yes >> 0 no >> >> Q2: 3 EAP-FASTv2 >> 2 EAP-TEAM >> >> Katrin >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: emu-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:emu-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >> Alan >>> DeKok >>> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 7:55 AM >>> To: emu@ietf.org >>> Subject: Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method >>> >>> >>> We had 4 responses on the list, in addition to the discussion at >> IETF. >>> >>> Q1: 4 yes >>> 0 No >>> >>> Q2: 3 EAP-FASTv2 >>> 1 EAP-TEAM >>> >>> The WG consensus is that EAP-FASTv2 should be the tunnel method. >>> >>> Alan DeKok wrote: >>>> For people who didn't attend the EMU meeting at IETF, please answer >>>> the following consensus call: >>>> >>>> Question 1: Are you ready to make a decision on the EAP tunneled >> method? >>>> >>>> Please indicate Yes or No. >>>> >>>> Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is "Yes", please indicate >>>> support for one of the two proposed methods: >>>> >>>> FASTv2 >>>> or >>>> EAP-Team >>>> >>> ... >>>> Thursday April 14. That gives us 2 weeks, which is usual for a >>>> consensus call. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Emu mailing list >>> Emu@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu >> _______________________________________________ >> Emu mailing list >> Emu@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu > _______________________________________________ > Emu mailing list > Emu@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNq9XAAAoJEG4XtfZZU7RfuakIAKYsdDLjBfsXkdKQCRQvSxq1 EPYOwruobMBLH3kXUdHJKFkJXsTAkkFXsHl2wa2KpiTyyG1VEpLC7SmQdvZjA2T2 bOmSc4N1e9Kks4oSzh/+zN1Js07T252mnhN+lBEyu+HjcAHtsaCgcw0ZqAM3O+3l Fy1EKp8ZyUmQ18+Q8E9cWpr5cTHlMJxBXW4szDjsQHDHiQoFM0VA2esTdOzYgdzb ps2zH2k4Qkw4MwFizxxCpbw2w8nmeLHrQu46QlXi/zwCdOVcxqkTVw+XMbrEW5Vv /o1BqmlHXfdbxrVX8yIQBjab8gOgO/jmrrTTF/0MIX7hQrT79kCTynjEG/gja/U= =iRgo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------050005080806030905030801 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8; name="gwz.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="gwz.vcf" begin:vcard fn:Glen Zorn n:Zorn;Glen org:Network Zen adr:;;;Seattle;WA;;USA email;internet:gwz@net-zen.net tel;cell:+66 87 040 4617 note:PGP Key Fingerprint: DAD3 F5D3 ACE6 4195 9C5C 2EE1 6E17 B5F6 5953 B45F version:2.1 end:vcard --------------050005080806030905030801-- From jsalowey@cisco.com Mon Apr 18 11:10:11 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92129E080C for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:10:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RVhQnNv6zj+y for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:10:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3C96E0684 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:10:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=jsalowey@cisco.com; l=808; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1303150209; x=1304359809; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id: to:mime-version; bh=u7mhGZcORpit5xmqlOwbcI8HxYSUX6ck5PWkFXLRlAU=; b=CBD0E/v+dJdujCqip6cfIEGt05uDF26D2heJVpgF2Rq2/fGonIFXBEkx fidvvJpYKCPhV7L5q1sq/W+iSyRHBzmrt0iScttzWHCD66BfUZ1pVtreK VvurryPRhqA4vjpHKWRN4Atp3VZ53P6t3jD3PL3qMSYGDUi5t56KBtr9W w=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AoAHACl9rE2rRDoJ/2dsb2JhbACXdY1Ed6d3nDWFcQSFYogeg3U X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,233,1301875200"; d="scan'208";a="339885107" Received: from mtv-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.58.9]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Apr 2011 18:10:08 +0000 Received: from [10.33.251.67] ([10.33.251.67]) by mtv-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p3IIA7kM032132 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:10:08 GMT From: Joe Salowey Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:11:59 -0700 Message-Id: <0E03D014-2A60-4908-B72D-532E113B818D@cisco.com> To: emu@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Subject: [Emu] Channel Binding Consensus Call X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:10:11 -0000 This is a consensus call to validate the direction the = draft-ietf-emu-chbind-07 and confirm the consensus around the encoding = of the channel binding TLV. Please respond to the following questions = by May 2, 2011. =20 1. Do you agree with the direction taken in draft-ietf-emu-chbind-07. = More specifically the usage of a channel binding specific TLV, the = support of multiple name spaces, and that the server indicates to the = client what attributes were validated. =20 2. Two encoding method where described in IETF-80 in the following = presentation http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/80/slides/emu-1.pdf. Do you = prefer encoding option 1, where attributes are encoded individually or = option 2 where attributes in the same namespace are grouped together. =20= Cheers, Joe From hartmans@mit.edu Mon Apr 18 11:13:07 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B049E07FA for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:13:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.265 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Cf2PRLu1TP8v for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:13:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.suchdamage.org (permutation-city.suchdamage.org [69.25.196.28]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7852E07F7 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:13:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org [69.25.196.178]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "laptop", Issuer "laptop" (not verified)) by mail.suchdamage.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26BA7203B1; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:09:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id C61624541; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:12:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Sam Hartman To: Glen Zorn References: <4D932235.7050409@deployingradius.com> <4D935DDD.8000301@deployingradius.com> <4DA84041.5000100@deployingradius.com> <3A241A6B234BE948B8B474D261FEBC2F08FF2F1B@de01exm68.ds.mot.com> <4DABD5C1.2080606@net-zen.net> Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:12:57 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4DABD5C1.2080606@net-zen.net> (Glen Zorn's message of "Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:10:09 +0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110009 (No Gnus v0.9) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "emu@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:13:07 -0000 >>>>> "Glen" == Glen Zorn writes: Glen> On 4/16/2011 2:21 AM, Stephen Hanna wrote: >> I agree with Katrin's count for the email poll. When combined >> with the count from the meeting in Prague (since Alan asked for >> only folks who didn't attend the EMU WG meeting in Prague), Glen> Based upon a policy that was AFAICT created out of thin air by Glen> Bernard, who has AFAICT zero official status in emu (but, Glen> OTOH, _has_ evinced the ability to count). Glen, your message lacks a certain clarity, which is to say I can't really understand what it means. However, I've thrown darts randomly around the room, and managed to find most of them where they landed, and based on that, I think you might be saying the following: Bernard came up with the idea that the chairs should have a consensus call in the meeting and ask for input from those not participating in the meeting on the list. You think this comes from thin air. If that was not roughly what you were trying to say, stop here and see if you can recommend a translator I can use:-) If that was what you were trying to say, take a look at RFc 2418, the BCP on working group procedures. That document requires that the sense of the room and the list together be taken into account: decisions are made on the list but the people in the room count there. Also, RFC 2418's language encourages something very like what the chairs did. In addition, this particular part of IETF process has made its way all the way to an IAB appeal as part of evaluating the decision te deprecate site-local addresses in IPv6. The appeal response specifically cited the v6 chairs's decision to handle the list traffic in a manner very similar to what the EMU chairs did here--and yes, this was cited as a *good thing* in following our process. So, while the counting may be lacking, the process grounding at least to the extent I'm discussing it here seems quite firm. From khoeper@motorolasolutions.com Mon Apr 18 11:59:12 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E496E086F for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:59:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2Wb+Ks3Fix8C for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:59:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail119.messagelabs.com (mail119.messagelabs.com [216.82.241.195]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 913F1E0867 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:59:11 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: khoeper@motorolasolutions.com X-Msg-Ref: server-11.tower-119.messagelabs.com!1303153150!14900008!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.9; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [136.182.1.12] Received: (qmail 1334 invoked from network); 18 Apr 2011 18:59:10 -0000 Received: from motgate2.mot-solutions.com (HELO motgate2.mot-solutions.com) (136.182.1.12) by server-11.tower-119.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 18 Apr 2011 18:59:10 -0000 Received: from il27exr01.cig.mot.com (il27exr01.mot.com [10.17.196.70]) by motgate2.mot-solutions.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p3IIxAdb013641 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:59:10 -0700 (MST) Received: from il27vts02.mot.com (il27vts02.cig.mot.com [10.17.196.86]) by il27exr01.cig.mot.com (8.13.1/Vontu) with SMTP id p3IIw9Bv020682 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:58:09 -0500 (CDT) Received: from de01exm68.ds.mot.com (de01exm68.am.mot.com [10.176.8.24]) by il27exr01.cig.mot.com (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id p3IIw97X020670 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:58:09 -0500 (CDT) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:57:47 -0400 Message-ID: <3A241A6B234BE948B8B474D261FEBC2F08FF3596@de01exm68.ds.mot.com> In-Reply-To: <0E03D014-2A60-4908-B72D-532E113B818D@cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Emu] Channel Binding Consensus Call Thread-Index: Acv98+ANwk+YKm+KSl2szQET6vddtAABoF0Q References: <0E03D014-2A60-4908-B72D-532E113B818D@cisco.com> From: "Hoeper Katrin-QWKN37" To: "Joe Salowey" , X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Subject: Re: [Emu] Channel Binding Consensus Call X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:59:12 -0000 1. agree 2. option 1 because it appears cleaner but no strong preference Katrin=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: emu-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:emu-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joe > Salowey > Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 1:12 PM > To: emu@ietf.org > Subject: [Emu] Channel Binding Consensus Call >=20 > This is a consensus call to validate the direction the draft-ietf-emu- > chbind-07 and confirm the consensus around the encoding of the channel > binding TLV. Please respond to the following questions by May 2, 2011. >=20 > 1. Do you agree with the direction taken in draft-ietf-emu-chbind-07. > More specifically the usage of a channel binding specific TLV, the support > of multiple name spaces, and that the server indicates to the client what > attributes were validated. >=20 > 2. Two encoding method where described in IETF-80 in the following > presentation http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/80/slides/emu-1.pdf. Do you > prefer encoding option 1, where attributes are encoded individually or > option 2 where attributes in the same namespace are grouped together. >=20 > Cheers, >=20 > Joe > _______________________________________________ > Emu mailing list > Emu@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu From turners@ieca.com Mon Apr 18 13:34:07 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91553E07F0 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:34:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.456 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.456 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.142, BAYES_00=-2.599, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Us7Db3PYDTP5 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:34:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm4.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm4.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.91.74]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 59D2AE0713 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:34:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.139.91.67] by nm4.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 18 Apr 2011 20:34:03 -0000 Received: from [98.139.91.45] by tm7.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 18 Apr 2011 20:34:03 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1045.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 18 Apr 2011 20:34:03 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 18.61074.bm@omp1045.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 55537 invoked from network); 18 Apr 2011 20:34:02 -0000 Received: from thunderfish.local (turners@71.191.4.207 with plain) by smtp111.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 Apr 2011 13:34:02 -0700 PDT X-Yahoo-SMTP: ZrP3VLSswBDL75pF8ymZHDSu9B.vcMfDPgLJ X-YMail-OSG: ZNzyqPYVM1nFnlE.Jky1lMHNnLE5ZtEslqlET6L_jvJmD4T _lJaq.AS0PwLY5pFX_7bQWkNTs8H5elrhoO7A5kICwBxNT9214DvKEqvVm54 jFqcuVGRgGOVth0yYxwgTsDrtnPXVsnTCP0jFqI7NsLtUKe1P1gCjEWXZs4h 5YLtytkdGib2pajJjLmtrCzjl2ciOG._BhAYQleDDLLM_PzitPbN.wCqum_b Z6Xf0O1w5i9r8oB2QK8QPVxxseTMYqgSKE0UewLqwcZV1r6mnePg1e3i4c23 Ao.fn7uxNImB4J.P7yFneD1BJhGBPs1Dd3fKThKB_dA3xAcAgFfGaFSfA.5W hEvqU5xP7z1Msj7Ui0hzsX8L367Z6WJh7o.wn8c64 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 Message-ID: <4DACA038.8080009@ieca.com> Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 16:34:00 -0400 From: Sean Turner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Glen Zorn References: <4D932235.7050409@deployingradius.com> <4D935DDD.8000301@deployingradius.com> <4DA84041.5000100@deployingradius.com> <3A241A6B234BE948B8B474D261FEBC2F08FF2F1B@de01exm68.ds.mot.com> <4DABD5C1.2080606@net-zen.net> In-Reply-To: <4DABD5C1.2080606@net-zen.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "emu@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 20:34:07 -0000 On 4/18/11 2:10 AM, Glen Zorn wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 4/16/2011 2:21 AM, Stephen Hanna wrote: >> I agree with Katrin's count for the email poll. When combined >> with the count from the meeting in Prague (since Alan asked >> for only folks who didn't attend the EMU WG meeting in Prague), > > Based upon a policy that was AFAICT created out of thin air by Bernard, > who has AFAICT zero official status in emu (but, OTOH, _has_ evinced the > ability to count). I asked Bernard to be at the front of the room for this part of the session because Joe was involved in one of the proposals and Alan couldn't be there to do the "count". I guess maybe we could have people call out their names one by one and Alan could have done the count, but having somebody there in person seemed like a good way to go. spt >> I think the total is 12 for EAP-FASTv2 and 5 for EAP-TEAM. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Steve >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: emu-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:emu-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >>> Hoeper Katrin-QWKN37 >>> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 10:10 AM >>> To: Alan DeKok; emu@ietf.org >>> Subject: Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method >>> >>> I counted five responses: >>> >>> Q1: 5 yes >>> 0 no >>> >>> Q2: 3 EAP-FASTv2 >>> 2 EAP-TEAM >>> >>> Katrin >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: emu-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:emu-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >>> Alan >>>> DeKok >>>> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 7:55 AM >>>> To: emu@ietf.org >>>> Subject: Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method >>>> >>>> >>>> We had 4 responses on the list, in addition to the discussion at >>> IETF. >>>> >>>> Q1: 4 yes >>>> 0 No >>>> >>>> Q2: 3 EAP-FASTv2 >>>> 1 EAP-TEAM >>>> >>>> The WG consensus is that EAP-FASTv2 should be the tunnel method. >>>> >>>> Alan DeKok wrote: >>>>> For people who didn't attend the EMU meeting at IETF, please answer >>>>> the following consensus call: >>>>> >>>>> Question 1: Are you ready to make a decision on the EAP tunneled >>> method? >>>>> >>>>> Please indicate Yes or No. >>>>> >>>>> Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is "Yes", please indicate >>>>> support for one of the two proposed methods: >>>>> >>>>> FASTv2 >>>>> or >>>>> EAP-Team >>>>> >>>> ... >>>>> Thursday April 14. That gives us 2 weeks, which is usual for a >>>>> consensus call. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Emu mailing list >>>> Emu@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Emu mailing list >>> Emu@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu >> _______________________________________________ >> Emu mailing list >> Emu@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu >> >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNq9XAAAoJEG4XtfZZU7RfuakIAKYsdDLjBfsXkdKQCRQvSxq1 > EPYOwruobMBLH3kXUdHJKFkJXsTAkkFXsHl2wa2KpiTyyG1VEpLC7SmQdvZjA2T2 > bOmSc4N1e9Kks4oSzh/+zN1Js07T252mnhN+lBEyu+HjcAHtsaCgcw0ZqAM3O+3l > Fy1EKp8ZyUmQ18+Q8E9cWpr5cTHlMJxBXW4szDjsQHDHiQoFM0VA2esTdOzYgdzb > ps2zH2k4Qkw4MwFizxxCpbw2w8nmeLHrQu46QlXi/zwCdOVcxqkTVw+XMbrEW5Vv > /o1BqmlHXfdbxrVX8yIQBjab8gOgO/jmrrTTF/0MIX7hQrT79kCTynjEG/gja/U= > =iRgo > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > _______________________________________________ > Emu mailing list > Emu@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu From gwz@net-zen.net Tue Apr 19 00:52:31 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 221DDE0680 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 00:52:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l64+NeX-xc46 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 00:52:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p3plsmtpa01-03.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtpa01-03.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [72.167.82.83]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5426EE0668 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 00:52:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 16515 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2011 07:52:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (124.120.73.67) by p3plsmtpa01-03.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (72.167.82.83) with ESMTP; 19 Apr 2011 07:52:28 -0000 Message-ID: <4DAD3F32.3090900@net-zen.net> Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:52:18 +0700 From: Glen Zorn Organization: Network Zen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sam Hartman References: <4D932235.7050409@deployingradius.com> <4D935DDD.8000301@deployingradius.com> <4DA84041.5000100@deployingradius.com> <3A241A6B234BE948B8B474D261FEBC2F08FF2F1B@de01exm68.ds.mot.com> <4DABD5C1.2080606@net-zen.net> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------090007050902050802090001" Cc: "emu@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 07:52:31 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------090007050902050802090001 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 4/19/2011 1:12 AM, Sam Hartman wrote: >>>>>> "Glen" == Glen Zorn writes: > > Glen> On 4/16/2011 2:21 AM, Stephen Hanna wrote: > >> I agree with Katrin's count for the email poll. When combined > >> with the count from the meeting in Prague (since Alan asked for > >> only folks who didn't attend the EMU WG meeting in Prague), > > Glen> Based upon a policy that was AFAICT created out of thin air by > Glen> Bernard, who has AFAICT zero official status in emu (but, > Glen> OTOH, _has_ evinced the ability to count). > > Glen, your message lacks a certain clarity, which is to say I can't > really understand what it means. Hmm, that's interesting. I would have thought that the use of the term 'policy' would have been a dead giveaway, but apparently not. > However, I've thrown darts randomly around the room, and managed to > find most of them where they landed, and based on that, I think you > might be saying the following: > > Bernard came up with the idea that the chairs should have a consensus > call in the meeting and ask for input from those not participating in > the meeting on the list. > You think this comes from thin air. I'm quite certain that it wasn't Bearnard's idea to have a consensus call at all, nor to "pinch-hit" for the perennially absent DeKok. > > If that was not roughly what you were trying to say, stop here and > see if you can recommend a translator I can use:-) > > If that was what you were trying to say, take a look at RFc 2418, the > BCP on working group procedures. That document requires that the sense > of the room and the list together be taken into account: decisions are > made on the list but the people in the room count there. Also, RFC > 2418's language encourages something very like what the chairs did. RFC 2418 says: In the case where a consensus which has been reached during a face- to-face meeting is being verified on a mailing list the people who were in the meeting and expressed agreement must be taken into account. If there were 100 people in a meeting and only a few people on the mailing list disagree with the consensus of the meeting then the consensus should be seen as being verified. How, exactly, is "people in the room vote and then shut up", then "people who weren't in the room vote" similar to that? That is the policy to which I referred & that apparently _was_ made up out of thin air. ... --------------090007050902050802090001 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8; name="gwz.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="gwz.vcf" begin:vcard fn:Glen Zorn n:Zorn;Glen org:Network Zen adr:;;;Seattle;WA;;USA email;internet:gwz@net-zen.net tel;cell:+66 87 040 4617 note:PGP Key Fingerprint: DAD3 F5D3 ACE6 4195 9C5C 2EE1 6E17 B5F6 5953 B45F version:2.1 end:vcard --------------090007050902050802090001-- From klaas@wierenga.net Tue Apr 26 09:01:41 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8687DE07F2 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:01:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id coh6IQ7JWdKN for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:01:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out45-ams.mf.surf.net (out45-ams.mf.surf.net [145.0.1.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FEE7E07F0 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:01:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from teletubbie.het.net.je (teletubbie.het.net.je [192.87.110.29]) by outgoing2-ams.mf.surf.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id p3QG1ZUh002677 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 18:01:35 +0200 Received: from 64-103-25-233.cisco.com ([64.103.25.233] helo=macmini.wierenga.net) by teletubbie.het.net.je with esmtpsa (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.74 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1QEkgi-0006K8-Hj for emu@ietf.org; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 18:00:32 +0200 Message-ID: <4DB6EC5E.1060005@wierenga.net> Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 18:01:34 +0200 From: Klaas Wierenga User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: emu@ietf.org References: <0E03D014-2A60-4908-B72D-532E113B818D@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <0E03D014-2A60-4908-B72D-532E113B818D@cisco.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: no malware found X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN) X-CanIt-Geo: ip=192.87.110.29; country=NL; latitude=52.5000; longitude=5.7500; http://maps.google.com/maps?q=52.5000,5.7500&z=6 X-CanItPRO-Stream: p-out:default (inherits from p:default,base:default) X-Canit-Stats-ID: 0vEAg1zOs - 0db7f84e78dc - 20110426 (trained as not-spam) X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 145.0.1.45 Subject: Re: [Emu] Channel Binding Consensus Call X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 16:01:41 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 4/18/11 8:11 PM, Joe Salowey wrote: Hi, 1. yes 2. option 1 I have no strong preference for either, but option 1 seems cleaner to me (no further parsing neccesary, and I think the waste of bytes is not that big that we need to be too worried about that). For the record, I have indicated the same in the WG meeting. Klaas > This is a consensus call to validate the direction the > draft-ietf-emu-chbind-07 and confirm the consensus around the > encoding of the channel binding TLV. Please respond to the following > questions by May 2, 2011. > > 1. Do you agree with the direction taken in > draft-ietf-emu-chbind-07. More specifically the usage of a channel > binding specific TLV, the support of multiple name spaces, and that > the server indicates to the client what attributes were validated. > > 2. Two encoding method where described in IETF-80 in the following > presentation http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/80/slides/emu-1.pdf. Do > you prefer encoding option 1, where attributes are encoded > individually or option 2 where attributes in the same namespace are > grouped together. > > Cheers, > > Joe _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list > Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk227F4ACgkQH2Wy/p4XeFIJggCcCYClU2I9ju2tRkrb5kn9TiZ2 EE4AnRlidd17x1i1F1K8yYXd4ZwUfxnK =zwx5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jsalowey@cisco.com Tue Apr 26 09:46:46 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF219E076E for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:46:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SPkxfPvs8mdr for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:46:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 051A8E077E for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:46:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=jsalowey@cisco.com; l=1238; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1303836405; x=1305046005; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=6YJJtYFutdG2n90vGenu6TchjQPvKWPKnsyfVqjR6AE=; b=FVOi6wdsEbg9bpfC6T0qHCoDDbRpsDd8FNyNNLk4k518Mp7kH0o5XIbd DQRUWrBSf3rk6qhyHkUOQ1a3vIFUEUaKr6E8kHvq4PvuB+9T/KXG+3Qm8 UIfUjfn0XEfpNgtv/bxkY80a855lWbiVFqmTx7j2acsROQTILDNzJIQ1u U=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,269,1301875200"; d="scan'208";a="436655825" Received: from mtv-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.58.9]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Apr 2011 16:46:45 +0000 Received: from [10.33.251.67] ([10.33.251.67]) by mtv-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p3QGki19025457; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 16:46:44 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Joe Salowey In-Reply-To: <0E03D014-2A60-4908-B72D-532E113B818D@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:46:43 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <0E03D014-2A60-4908-B72D-532E113B818D@cisco.com> To: Joe Salowey X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: emu@ietf.org Subject: [Emu] Reminder: Channel Binding Consensus Call X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 16:46:46 -0000 This consensus call closes next week. This is an important working = group work item. If you have an opinion about this issue please send it = to the list so we can keep the work moving forward.=20 Thanks, Joe On Apr 18, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Joe Salowey wrote: > This is a consensus call to validate the direction the = draft-ietf-emu-chbind-07 and confirm the consensus around the encoding = of the channel binding TLV. Please respond to the following questions = by May 2, 2011. =20 >=20 > 1. Do you agree with the direction taken in draft-ietf-emu-chbind-07. = More specifically the usage of a channel binding specific TLV, the = support of multiple name spaces, and that the server indicates to the = client what attributes were validated. =20 >=20 > 2. Two encoding method where described in IETF-80 in the following = presentation http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/80/slides/emu-1.pdf. Do you = prefer encoding option 1, where attributes are encoded individually or = option 2 where attributes in the same namespace are grouped together. =20= >=20 > Cheers, >=20 > Joe > _______________________________________________ > Emu mailing list > Emu@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu From stefan.winter@restena.lu Wed Apr 27 04:13:15 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7DC2E071E for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 04:13:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zo8EruQSGsuF for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 04:13:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtprelay.restena.lu (smtprelay.restena.lu [IPv6:2001:a18:1::62]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB8D1E067C for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 04:13:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtprelay.restena.lu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtprelay.restena.lu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FDFC10694 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:13:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [IPv6:2001:a18:1:8::155] (unknown [IPv6:2001:a18:1:8::155]) by smtprelay.restena.lu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 912C310590 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:13:05 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4DB7FA43.6020607@restena.lu> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:13:07 +0200 From: Stefan Winter User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); de; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: emu@ietf.org References: <0E03D014-2A60-4908-B72D-532E113B818D@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <0E03D014-2A60-4908-B72D-532E113B818D@cisco.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig4E8061AF5B6FFC6F71E1CC7B" X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV Subject: Re: [Emu] Channel Binding Consensus Call X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 11:13:15 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig4E8061AF5B6FFC6F71E1CC7B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 1. Agree 2. Option 1 Attribute parsing should be easier with this option 1 - Length can always serve as a pointer to the next attribute, with explicit namespace ID. With option 2, attribute delimiters are only within NS-Specific, and Length points to the Namespace, if any. That makes two code paths, one for parsing NSID delimiters, and one for parsing attributes. However, the chances that I'll ever actually implement this are incredibly slim, so my opinion shouldn't be considered with much weight. Greetings, Stefan > 1. Do you agree with the direction taken in draft-ietf-emu-chbind-07. = More specifically the usage of a channel binding specific TLV, the suppo= rt of multiple name spaces, and that the server indicates to the client w= hat attributes were validated. =20 > > 2. Two encoding method where described in IETF-80 in the following pre= sentation http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/80/slides/emu-1.pdf. Do you prefe= r encoding option 1, where attributes are encoded individually or option = 2 where attributes in the same namespace are grouped together. =20 > > Cheers, > > Joe > _______________________________________________ > Emu mailing list > Emu@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu --=20 Stefan WINTER Ingenieur de Recherche Fondation RESTENA - R=E9seau T=E9l=E9informatique de l'Education National= e et de la Recherche 6, rue Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi L-1359 Luxembourg Tel: +352 424409 1 Fax: +352 422473 --------------enig4E8061AF5B6FFC6F71E1CC7B Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk23+kcACgkQ+jm90f8eFWZrMwCgilFce6pE3nY8RKsX30To7SLC dn0An2C0IIE6LeUsZr0YNUs6d5wMdcei =BTxb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig4E8061AF5B6FFC6F71E1CC7B-- From ncamwing@cisco.com Wed Apr 27 09:08:58 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23098E07ED for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:08:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.532 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w-EdyVXsBSuL for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:08:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FBF2E07CC for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:08:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=ncamwing@cisco.com; l=1500; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1303920537; x=1305130137; h=date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2/4MPRRzyNbAlGcSpraX5SM+v6BRm9iZLEKuM+Z40Bs=; b=AjgZcaJqPp1GW2J264Qoz8fYqMw8/0VU69I8pOKt4mwoZL/+wPCL69eo bTOLPwy30lnpAUHNrTdGNSS2ZSqcacAz6SkKo+y21cJmw2HnhTdtBGc62 MSB7F1E2CJYcCHNujy+ctf26+X8QqBbNTDqy6gjF48FdVtW4638FxJ1NU A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AokFAHs/uE2rRDoG/2dsb2JhbAClagJ3iHCde5x/hXYEhgOIToQahiaEDA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,275,1301875200"; d="scan'208";a="437462056" Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([171.68.58.6]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Apr 2011 16:08:45 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p3RG8j6l023856 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 16:08:45 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.156]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:08:45 -0700 Received: from 171.69.152.66 ([171.69.152.66]) by xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.156]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 16:08:45 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.28.0.101117 Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:08:55 -0700 From: Nancy Cam-Winget To: Joseph Salowey Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Emu] Reminder: Channel Binding Consensus Call Thread-Index: AcwE9WhIS2gawc16G02XsBtkfO/3Cg== In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Apr 2011 16:08:45.0746 (UTC) FILETIME=[62C4B920:01CC04F5] Cc: emu@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Emu] Reminder: Channel Binding Consensus Call X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 16:08:58 -0000 1. Yes 2. Option 1 Thanks, Nancy. On 4/26/11 9:46 AM, "Joseph Salowey" wrote: > This consensus call closes next week. This is an important working group work > item. If you have an opinion about this issue please send it to the list so we > can keep the work moving forward. > > Thanks, > > Joe > On Apr 18, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Joe Salowey wrote: > >> This is a consensus call to validate the direction the >> draft-ietf-emu-chbind-07 and confirm the consensus around the encoding of the >> channel binding TLV. Please respond to the following questions by May 2, >> 2011. >> >> 1. Do you agree with the direction taken in draft-ietf-emu-chbind-07. More >> specifically the usage of a channel binding specific TLV, the support of >> multiple name spaces, and that the server indicates to the client what >> attributes were validated. >> >> 2. Two encoding method where described in IETF-80 in the following >> presentation http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/80/slides/emu-1.pdf. Do you prefer >> encoding option 1, where attributes are encoded individually or option 2 >> where attributes in the same namespace are grouped together. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Joe >> _______________________________________________ >> Emu mailing list >> Emu@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu > > _______________________________________________ > Emu mailing list > Emu@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu From aland@deployingradius.com Wed Apr 27 09:38:15 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E491AE07E0 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:38:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.499 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pkVdma4RpLFE for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:38:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from liberty.deployingradius.com (liberty.deployingradius.com [88.191.76.128]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D2B8E06C9 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:38:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4DB84675.9010509@deployingradius.com> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 18:38:13 +0200 From: Alan DeKok User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Macintosh/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joe Salowey References: <0E03D014-2A60-4908-B72D-532E113B818D@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: emu@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Emu] Reminder: Channel Binding Consensus Call X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 16:38:16 -0000 (speaking as individual contributor) #1 - Yes, I agree. #2 - encoding method #2 Joe Salowey wrote: > This consensus call closes next week. This is an important working group work item. If you have an opinion about this issue please send it to the list so we can keep the work moving forward. > > Thanks, > > Joe > On Apr 18, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Joe Salowey wrote: > >> This is a consensus call to validate the direction the draft-ietf-emu-chbind-07 and confirm the consensus around the encoding of the channel binding TLV. Please respond to the following questions by May 2, 2011. >> >> 1. Do you agree with the direction taken in draft-ietf-emu-chbind-07. More specifically the usage of a channel binding specific TLV, the support of multiple name spaces, and that the server indicates to the client what attributes were validated. >> >> 2. Two encoding method where described in IETF-80 in the following presentation http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/80/slides/emu-1.pdf. Do you prefer encoding option 1, where attributes are encoded individually or option 2 where attributes in the same namespace are grouped together. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Joe >> _______________________________________________ >> Emu mailing list >> Emu@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu > > _______________________________________________ > Emu mailing list > Emu@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu > > From mccann.stephen@gmail.com Wed Apr 27 10:50:24 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34769E0822 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 10:50:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x8ZSsTIzy9Wh for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 10:50:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5814FE076E for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 10:50:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bwz13 with SMTP id 13so1862442bwz.31 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 10:50:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=aVjcJKwSJM/DsnQB7iqcF2hhmHHoQnuwWVLTCNzIVp8=; b=xpK+dEju79QHjZ4pyB+8WKXna160dcYSKCCPRYa4Dxb3ehwPaNOEOgYMcIxrW8wr3W tIoNeT0ybAh2XWxCNAyAOPgVwI6bsPil5EbJh3QPJPn38orOOWjghluWibpHM2P4FNCA ASdj3egRTpt98XTyE4cxydctIIDl7/qIXuVyA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=JNtOWx5jjnFb5Q4WXARdzwEyCHDRcVB8+8/Pv3EviS3bKpyEfbxpOoe6zg9CfoOrRm fcwQNP3p9sfxJZqNbFZ5CQQtytIybDlasEBi8fK7HtYhL9hdZD4rRe9XZYpeGwnD9obQ 1Lrmelmun/dEkWEnaFXhUQ//dfnfU150aZqaw= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.141.12 with SMTP id k12mr1348560bku.44.1303926622095; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 10:50:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.40.203 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 10:50:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <0E03D014-2A60-4908-B72D-532E113B818D@cisco.com> References: <0E03D014-2A60-4908-B72D-532E113B818D@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 18:50:22 +0100 Message-ID: From: Stephen McCann To: emu@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Emu] Channel Binding Consensus Call X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 17:50:24 -0000 Dear all, 1) Agree 2) Option 1 Kind regards Stephen McCann Research in Motion Southampton, UK On 18 April 2011 19:11, Joe Salowey wrote: > This is a consensus call to validate the direction the draft-ietf-emu-chb= ind-07 and confirm the consensus around the encoding of the channel binding= TLV. =A0Please respond to the following questions by May 2, 2011. > > 1. =A0Do you agree with the direction taken in draft-ietf-emu-chbind-07. = =A0More specifically the usage of a channel binding specific TLV, the suppo= rt of multiple name spaces, and that the server indicates to the client wha= t attributes were validated. > > 2. =A0Two encoding method where described in IETF-80 in the following pre= sentation http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/80/slides/emu-1.pdf. =A0Do you prefe= r encoding option 1, where attributes are encoded individually or option 2 = where attributes in the same namespace are grouped together. > > Cheers, > > Joe > _______________________________________________ > Emu mailing list > Emu@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu > From gwz@net-zen.net Wed Apr 27 19:22:22 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CE78E072E for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 19:22:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3fOsA728xgmA for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 19:22:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p3plsmtpa06-02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtpa06-02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [173.201.192.103]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id AD998E0675 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 19:22:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 734 invoked from network); 28 Apr 2011 02:15:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (124.120.70.183) by p3plsmtpa06-02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (173.201.192.103) with ESMTP; 28 Apr 2011 02:15:36 -0000 Message-ID: <4DB8CDBF.4010702@net-zen.net> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 09:15:27 +0700 From: Glen Zorn Organization: Network Zen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joe Salowey References: <0E03D014-2A60-4908-B72D-532E113B818D@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------080903050700060309010703" Cc: emu@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Emu] Reminder: Channel Binding Consensus Call X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 02:22:22 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------080903050700060309010703 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 4/26/2011 11:46 PM, Joe Salowey wrote: > This consensus call closes next week. This is an important working group work item. If you have an opinion about this issue please send it to the list so we can keep the work moving forward. > > Thanks, > > Joe > On Apr 18, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Joe Salowey wrote: > >> This is a consensus call to validate the direction the draft-ietf-emu-chbind-07 and confirm the consensus around the encoding of the channel binding TLV. Please respond to the following questions by May 2, 2011. >> >> 1. Do you agree with the direction taken in draft-ietf-emu-chbind-07. More specifically the usage of a channel binding specific TLV, the support of multiple name spaces, and that the server indicates to the client what attributes were validated. Since one-word, unjustified answers seem to be the way to go, I guess I'll save time by following suit: No. >> 2. Two encoding method where described in IETF-80 in the following presentation http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/80/slides/emu-1.pdf. Do you prefer encoding option 1, where attributes are encoded individually or option 2 where attributes in the same namespace are grouped together. Neither. ... --------------080903050700060309010703 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8; name="gwz.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="gwz.vcf" begin:vcard fn:Glen Zorn n:Zorn;Glen org:Network Zen adr:;;;Seattle;WA;;USA email;internet:gwz@net-zen.net tel;cell:+66 87 040 4617 note:PGP Key Fingerprint: DAD3 F5D3 ACE6 4195 9C5C 2EE1 6E17 B5F6 5953 B45F version:2.1 end:vcard --------------080903050700060309010703-- From aland@deployingradius.com Thu Apr 28 01:01:53 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5278E06ED for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 01:01:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.524 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mB5+zjWoSAHN for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 01:01:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from liberty.deployingradius.com (liberty.deployingradius.com [88.191.76.128]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0B8FE06C0 for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 01:01:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4DB91EEC.3030804@deployingradius.com> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 10:01:48 +0200 From: Alan DeKok User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Macintosh/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joe Salowey References: <0E03D014-2A60-4908-B72D-532E113B818D@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: emu@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Emu] Reminder: Channel Binding Consensus Call X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 08:01:53 -0000 Joe Salowey wrote: >> 1. Do you agree with the direction taken in draft-ietf-emu-chbind-07. More specifically the usage of a channel binding specific TLV, the support of multiple name spaces, and that the server indicates to the client what attributes were validated. Yes. >> 2. Two encoding method where described in IETF-80 in the following presentation http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/80/slides/emu-1.pdf. Do you prefer encoding option 1, where attributes are encoded individually or option 2 where attributes in the same namespace are grouped together. (2). Speaking as an individual contributor. From aland@deployingradius.com Thu Apr 28 01:04:32 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FC7EE06CB for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 01:04:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.539 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DVFYaU0xB9Yz for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 01:04:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from liberty.deployingradius.com (liberty.deployingradius.com [88.191.76.128]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7D5FE06C8 for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 01:04:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4DB91F8E.1030307@deployingradius.com> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 10:04:30 +0200 From: Alan DeKok User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Macintosh/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stefan Winter References: <0E03D014-2A60-4908-B72D-532E113B818D@cisco.com> <4DB7FA43.6020607@restena.lu> In-Reply-To: <4DB7FA43.6020607@restena.lu> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: emu@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Emu] Channel Binding Consensus Call X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 08:04:32 -0000 Stefan Winter wrote: > Attribute parsing should be easier with this option 1 - Length can > always serve as a pointer to the next attribute, with explicit namespace > ID. With option 2, attribute delimiters are only within NS-Specific, and > Length points to the Namespace, if any. That makes two code paths, one > for parsing NSID delimiters, and one for parsing attributes. My $0.02 is that it's easier to do: Parse NS stuff NS1 - parse protocol-specific 1 NS2 - parse protocol-specific 2 The alternative is: Parse NS stuff NS1 - parse NS1-specific variant of protocol 1 NS2 - parse NS2-specific variant of protocol 2 I don't want to write yet another "almost RADIUS" or "almost Diameter" encoder/decoder. I'd like to re-use the existing code where possible. But the current consensus of the WG seems to be against this opinion. Oh well. Alan DeKok. From hartmans@mit.edu Thu Apr 28 09:45:07 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F19BE0698 for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 09:45:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.987 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.987 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.722, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xvQR2dhv128I for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 09:45:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.suchdamage.org (permutation-city.suchdamage.org [69.25.196.28]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0B5AE0669 for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 09:45:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org [69.25.196.178]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "laptop", Issuer "laptop" (not verified)) by mail.suchdamage.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D28B720265; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 12:41:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 6C5774792; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 12:45:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Sam Hartman To: Alan DeKok References: <0E03D014-2A60-4908-B72D-532E113B818D@cisco.com> <4DB7FA43.6020607@restena.lu> <4DB91F8E.1030307@deployingradius.com> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 12:45:00 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4DB91F8E.1030307@deployingradius.com> (Alan DeKok's message of "Thu, 28 Apr 2011 10:04:30 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110009 (No Gnus v0.9) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: emu@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Emu] Channel Binding Consensus Call X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 16:45:07 -0000 >>>>> "Alan" == Alan DeKok writes: Alan> Stefan Winter wrote: >> Attribute parsing should be easier with this option 1 - Length >> can always serve as a pointer to the next attribute, with >> explicit namespace ID. With option 2, attribute delimiters are >> only within NS-Specific, and Length points to the Namespace, if >> any. That makes two code paths, one for parsing NSID delimiters, >> and one for parsing attributes. Alan> My $0.02 is that it's easier to do: Alan> Parse NS stuff NS1 - parse protocol-specific 1 NS2 - parse Alan> protocol-specific 2 I think this is true on the server. However, I'd really appreciate your thoughts on what will happen inside the EAP peer itself? My assumption is that outside of the guts of a TTLS implementation, EAP peers today don't have knowledge either of RADIUS or DIAMETER. So, a format that minimizes how much they need to understand either of these protocols would be valuable. From aland@deployingradius.com Thu Apr 28 09:57:30 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F3BAE0724 for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 09:57:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.556 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.556 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.043, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iMadDay9kAOG for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 09:57:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from liberty.deployingradius.com (liberty.deployingradius.com [88.191.76.128]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBABCE0670 for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 09:57:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4DB99C78.6060205@deployingradius.com> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:57:28 +0200 From: Alan DeKok User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Macintosh/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sam Hartman References: <0E03D014-2A60-4908-B72D-532E113B818D@cisco.com> <4DB7FA43.6020607@restena.lu> <4DB91F8E.1030307@deployingradius.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: emu@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Emu] Channel Binding Consensus Call X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 16:57:30 -0000 Sam Hartman wrote: > I think this is true on the server. Yes. > However, I'd really appreciate your thoughts on what will happen inside > the EAP peer itself? Ideally, code re-use. > My assumption is that outside of the guts of a TTLS implementation, EAP > peers today don't have knowledge either of RADIUS or DIAMETER. Largely, yes. > So, a > format that minimizes how much they need to understand either of these > protocols would be valuable. Valuable, yes. High value, perhaps not. There is plenty of BSD-licensed code available for packing and unpacking RADIUS attributes. There should be little cost to re-using that, and a larger cost in writing a new attribute packer. Alan DeKok. From hartmans@mit.edu Thu Apr 28 10:51:43 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35726E0689 for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 10:51:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.807 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.807 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.542, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bXIv5osRLnKT for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 10:51:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.suchdamage.org (permutation-city.suchdamage.org [69.25.196.28]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFFA7E0698 for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 10:51:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org [69.25.196.178]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "laptop", Issuer "laptop" (not verified)) by mail.suchdamage.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CAE292016B; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:47:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 6741F4792; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:51:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Sam Hartman To: Alan DeKok References: <0E03D014-2A60-4908-B72D-532E113B818D@cisco.com> <4DB7FA43.6020607@restena.lu> <4DB91F8E.1030307@deployingradius.com> <4DB99C78.6060205@deployingradius.com> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:51:36 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4DB99C78.6060205@deployingradius.com> (Alan DeKok's message of "Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:57:28 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110009 (No Gnus v0.9) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Sam Hartman , emu@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Emu] Channel Binding Consensus Call X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 17:51:43 -0000 >>>>> "Alan" == Alan DeKok writes: Alan> There is plenty of BSD-licensed code available for packing Alan> and unpacking RADIUS attributes. There should be little cost Alan> to re-using that, and a larger cost in writing a new attribute Alan> packer. Assuming RADIUS is basically the only namespace we end up needing this probably is true.