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-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:emu-boun...@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
