On 4/19/2011 1:12 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
Glen == Glen Zorn g...@net-zen.net writes:
Glen On 4/16/2011 2:21 AM, Stephen Hanna wrote:
I agree with Katrin's count for the email poll. When combined
with the count from the meeting in Prague (since Alan asked for
only folks who
-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Hoeper Katrin-QWKN37
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 10:10 AM
To: Alan DeKok; emu@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method
I counted five responses:
Q1: 5 yes
0 no
Q2: 3 EAP-FASTv2
2 EAP-TEAM
Katrin
-Original Message-
From
Glen == Glen Zorn g...@net-zen.net writes:
Glen On 4/16/2011 2:21 AM, Stephen Hanna wrote:
I agree with Katrin's count for the email poll. When combined
with the count from the meeting in Prague (since Alan asked for
only folks who didn't attend the EMU WG meeting in Prague),
Q1:Yes
Q2: I support using EAP-Team since it more fits for requrements defined in
I-D.ietf-emu-eaptunnel-req.
- Original Message -
From: Alan DeKok al...@deployingradius.com
To: emu@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 2:29 PM
Subject: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method
Alan,
Q1: Yes
Q2: FASTv2
Kind regards
Stephen McCann
Research in Motion
On 30 March 2011 13:29, Alan DeKok al...@deployingradius.com 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
Alan,
Could you set a deadline for these comments?
Thanks,
Steve
-Original Message-
From: emu-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:emu-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Alan DeKok
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 8:30 AM
To: emu@ietf.org
Subject: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method
