-----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----- _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
