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