Re: [Emu] Reminder: Channel Binding Consensus Call
1. Yes 2. Option 1 Thanks, Nancy. On 4/26/11 9:46 AM, Joseph Salowey jsalo...@cisco.com 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
Re: [Emu] Reminder: Channel Binding Consensus Call
(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
Re: [Emu] Channel Binding Consensus Call
Dear all, 1) Agree 2) Option 1 Kind regards Stephen McCann Research in Motion Southampton, UK On 18 April 2011 19:11, Joe Salowey jsalo...@cisco.com 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
