1. agree 2. option 1 because it appears cleaner but no strong preference
Katrin > -----Original Message----- > From: emu-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:emu-boun...@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 > > 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
