From hartmans@mit.edu Thu Mar 3 09:03:56 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68A293A69FC for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 09:03:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.877 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.877 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.612, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0aISB2BHKPDv for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 09:03:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.suchdamage.org (permutation-city.suchdamage.org [69.25.196.28]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE90F3A67F1 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 09:03:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org [69.25.196.178]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "laptop", Issuer "laptop" (not verified)) by mail.suchdamage.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3AE7C200D5 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 12:02:24 -0500 (EST) Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 948B24307; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 12:04:47 -0500 (EST) From: Sam Hartman To: emu@ietf.org Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 12:04:47 -0500 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110009 (No Gnus v0.9) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: [Emu] Really no proposals submitted so far? X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 17:03:56 -0000 I just want to confirm I haven't missed mail. It's my understanding that the call for proposals for tunnel methods closes March 7 and that so far we've seen no submissions. Is that correct? From aland@deployingradius.com Thu Mar 3 09:23:29 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07BC93A6A0C for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 09:23:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.579 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vZ0nCWV3t+YK for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 09:23:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from liberty.deployingradius.com (liberty.deployingradius.com [88.191.76.128]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33A273A67F1 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 09:23:28 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4D6FCED2.8070304@deployingradius.com> Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 18:24:34 +0100 From: Alan DeKok User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Macintosh/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sam Hartman References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: emu@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Emu] Really no proposals submitted so far? X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 17:23:29 -0000 Sam Hartman wrote: > I just want to confirm I haven't missed mail. > It's my understanding that the call for proposals for tunnel methods > closes March 7 and that so far we've seen no submissions. > Is that correct? Yes. Alan DeKok. From hzhou@cisco.com Sun Mar 6 19:41:53 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14DA13A68C1 for ; Sun, 6 Mar 2011 19:41:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MxPpk8-2JSO9 for ; Sun, 6 Mar 2011 19:41:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F12AC3A68BA for ; Sun, 6 Mar 2011 19:41:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=hzhou@cisco.com; l=838; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1299469385; x=1300678985; h=date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4KIEGlJUkv4mHHjpo456U2fLWdUn6SZDamda5eU5yLQ=; b=UADbqFNJ/yQHas5rScoXvb2SxGqMjtMjAVy66rn+a91M122wRq/07tu8 lFdc9vRo3vbA4Ii25EafQtlyOqAWPv/kc1zNVNVuGbBrx2yrT2ah12qQD ymfs54Fdb2caWwF2C9mo3xnBgogfSLJ6EtX0jvZGI26wBIAZktR9P8wMR o=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvYGAKXic02tJXG8/2dsb2JhbACYUY19dKMBmn+FYgSFHIcUg0k X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.62,274,1297036800"; d="scan'208";a="340817509" Received: from rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com ([173.37.113.188]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Mar 2011 03:43:04 +0000 Received: from xbh-rcd-301.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-301.cisco.com [72.163.63.8]) by rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p273h4KT009101; Mon, 7 Mar 2011 03:43:04 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-202.cisco.com ([72.163.62.209]) by xbh-rcd-301.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sun, 6 Mar 2011 21:43:04 -0600 Received: from 10.21.106.5 ([10.21.106.5]) by XMB-RCD-202.cisco.com ([72.163.62.209]) via Exchange Front-End Server email.cisco.com ([128.107.191.114]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Mon, 7 Mar 2011 03:43:04 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.28.0.101117 Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2011 22:43:04 -0500 From: Hao Zhou To: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Emu] Really no proposals submitted so far? Thread-Index: AcvZy6KdxQhsikBafECmFyFhuIQrjQCriDtw In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Mar 2011 03:43:04.0671 (UTC) FILETIME=[C3F136F0:01CBDC79] Subject: Re: [Emu] Really no proposals submitted so far? X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 03:41:53 -0000 We have submitted EAP-FAST Version 2 proposal for the standard Tunnel Based EAP method. It is at http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-zhou-emu-eap-fastv2-00.txt. Comments welcome. > From: Alan DeKok > Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 18:24:34 +0100 > To: Sam Hartman > Cc: > Subject: Re: [Emu] Really no proposals submitted so far? > > Sam Hartman wrote: >> I just want to confirm I haven't missed mail. >> It's my understanding that the call for proposals for tunnel methods >> closes March 7 and that so far we've seen no submissions. >> Is that correct? > > Yes. > > Alan DeKok. > _______________________________________________ > Emu mailing list > Emu@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu > > ------ End of Forwarded Message > From gwz@net-zen.net Mon Mar 7 10:29:04 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1433A3A6834 for ; Mon, 7 Mar 2011 10:29:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6HmoIbAAA3bo for ; Mon, 7 Mar 2011 10:29:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtpauth02.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (smtpauth02.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net [64.202.165.182]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5EF9B3A6820 for ; Mon, 7 Mar 2011 10:28:17 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 24439 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2011 18:29:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (124.121.224.85) by smtpauth02.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.182) with ESMTP; 07 Mar 2011 18:29:25 -0000 Message-ID: <4D752400.6090902@net-zen.net> Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 01:29:20 +0700 From: Glen Zorn Organization: Network Zen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: emu@ietf.org, Dan Harkins , Qin Wu , Glen Zorn Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------070302020603070001030700" Subject: [Emu] Fwd: I-D Action:draft-zorn-emu-team-02.txt X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 18:29:04 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------070302020603070001030700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Please consider this draft to be a proposal for the standard tunneled EAP method -------- Original Message -------- Subject: I-D Action:draft-zorn-emu-team-02.txt Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 10:15:02 -0800 From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : The Tunneled Extensible Authentication Method (TEAM) Author(s) : G. Zorn, et al. Filename : draft-zorn-emu-team-02.txt Pages : 73 Date : 2011-03-07 The Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) provides support for multiple authentication methods. This document defines the Tunneled Extensible Authentication Method (TEAM), which provides an encrypted and authenticated tunnel based on transport layer security (TLS) that encapsulates EAP authentication mechanisms. TEAM uses TLS to protect against rogue authenticators, protect against various attacks on the confidentiality and integrity of the inner EAP method exchange and provide EAP peer identity privacy. TEAM also provides support for chaining multiple EAP mechanisms, cryptographic binding between authentications performed by inner EAP mechanisms and the tunnel, exchange of arbitrary parameters (TLVs), and fragmentation and reassembly. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zorn-emu-team-02.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --------------070302020603070001030700 Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-zorn-emu-team-02.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="draft-zorn-emu-team-02.txt" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2011-03-07100148.I-D@ietf.org> --------------070302020603070001030700 Content-Type: text/plain; name="Attached Message Part" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Attached Message Part" _______________________________________________ I-D-Announce mailing list I-D-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt --------------070302020603070001030700-- From bernard_aboba@hotmail.com Mon Mar 14 20:09:45 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28C713A6B94 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:09:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.149, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PKR7YsRG97ss for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:09:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from blu0-omc3-s1.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc3-s1.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.76]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C4C93A6973 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:09:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from BLU152-W7 ([65.55.116.73]) by blu0-omc3-s1.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:11:08 -0700 Message-ID: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_10223420-dd2f-4290-8d12-08e204750b54_" X-Originating-IP: [68.178.109.244] From: Bernard Aboba To: Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:11:08 -0700 Importance: Normal MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Mar 2011 03:11:08.0661 (UTC) FILETIME=[A1374A50:01CBE2BE] Subject: [Emu] Question about EAP Session-Id in EAP SIM and AKA X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 03:09:45 -0000 --_10223420-dd2f-4290-8d12-08e204750b54_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Since the EAP Session-Id is utilized in EAP lower layers such as IEEE 802.1= X-2010=2C the interoperability of an EAP method implementations can be affe= cted by the definition of the Session-Id. One important requirement for t= he Session-Id is that it be unique for each EAP session. That is=2C a fast= reauthentication should produce a new Session-Id. Recently=2C some questi= ons have arisen about the Session-Id specified in EAP SIM=2C AKA and AKA'. = =20 As per RFC 5247=2C the Session-Id is (0x12 | RAND | NONCE_MT) in EAP SIM. = However=2C when fast re-authentication happens these attributes are not exc= hanged. There is another unique attribute NONCE_S sent from server to clien= t. So the question has arisen as to whether the Session-Id should it be (0x= 12 | NONCE_S) when fast re-authentication happens. The same question arises= in EAP AKA/AKA' as well. = --_10223420-dd2f-4290-8d12-08e204750b54_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Since the EAP Session-Id is utilized in EAP lower layers such as IEEE 802.1= X-2010=2C the interoperability of an EAP method implementations can be affe= cted by the definition of the Session-Id. =3B =3B One important req= uirement for the Session-Id is that it be unique for each EAP session. = =3B That is=2C a fast reauthentication should produce a new Session-Id.&nbs= p=3B Recently=2C some questions have arisen about the Session-Id specified = in EAP SIM=2C AKA and AKA'. =3B

As per RFC 5247=2C the Session-= Id is (0x12 | RAND | NONCE_MT) in EAP SIM. =3B However=2C when fast re-= authentication happens these attributes are not exchanged. There is another= unique attribute NONCE_S sent from server to client. So the question has a= risen as to whether the Session-Id should it be (0x12 | NONCE_S) when fast = re-authentication happens. The same question arises in EAP AKA/AKA' as well= .
= --_10223420-dd2f-4290-8d12-08e204750b54_-- From jsalowey@cisco.com Wed Mar 16 12:55:06 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BEC53A6AAE for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 12:55:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YI+Vx+XS6eII for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 12:55:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 616BD3A6AAC for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 12:55:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=jsalowey@cisco.com; l=1195; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1300305392; x=1301514992; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=TN7jLWsNcTUzm8pCcoLy7wDUqz21SMYoZbF/5HXFwes=; b=TvnsXnzqJDzXmgbadEe26bHBuC473X+KDDi0AoMtmrV0kRgihE0Jt05V TBnptDitEfov8P9RqSuuxKeHs7tAcrRyZDZPEpY33iUCngSbHnTpttgdU Jih77JbTWbLmQ5FwREdXXVu4FqroRi45Kzk8xVes9EKQCFtISLWWbupCd A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAHKygE2tJXHA/2dsb2JhbACmDHeldZxWhWMEhS+HL4NN X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.63,195,1299456000"; d="scan'208";a="278787486" Received: from rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com ([173.37.113.192]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Mar 2011 19:56:31 +0000 Received: from [10.33.251.197] ([10.33.251.197]) by rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p2GJuVm6013144; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 19:56:31 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Joe Salowey In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 12:57:57 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <6DAC11C4-9A4E-4D38-BE9C-F77ECCBDE6A0@cisco.com> References: To: Bernard Aboba X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Cc: emu@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Emu] Question about EAP Session-Id in EAP SIM and AKA X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 19:55:06 -0000 At first glance it looks to me like this is an issue. I'm going to add = this as an agenda item for Prague. =20 Joe On Mar 14, 2011, at 8:11 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote: > Since the EAP Session-Id is utilized in EAP lower layers such as IEEE = 802.1X-2010, the interoperability of an EAP method implementations can = be affected by the definition of the Session-Id. One important = requirement for the Session-Id is that it be unique for each EAP = session. That is, a fast reauthentication should produce a new = Session-Id. Recently, some questions have arisen about the Session-Id = specified in EAP SIM, AKA and AKA'. =20 >=20 > As per RFC 5247, the Session-Id is (0x12 | RAND | NONCE_MT) in EAP = SIM. However, when fast re-authentication happens these attributes are = not exchanged. There is another unique attribute NONCE_S sent from = server to client. So the question has arisen as to whether the = Session-Id should it be (0x12 | NONCE_S) when fast re-authentication = happens. The same question arises in EAP AKA/AKA' as well. > _______________________________________________ > Emu mailing list > Emu@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu From jsalowey@cisco.com Wed Mar 16 13:14:28 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1436A3A69DE for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 13:14:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4dlSIph2Baj1 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 13:14:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E2843A690F for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 13:14:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=jsalowey@cisco.com; l=550; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1300306554; x=1301516154; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id: to:mime-version; bh=xBpnzqZ7sQQRV5rFV5YCjN0kJDjK7FpIPoM5+1iC3Jc=; b=lwgawW9upsnS7RL26q402j2OrtUGHFd4xU6VVzxwwBxxNnv45a/Mka6O ojhYSLvBH9tsDrCWiDxGL6E7f3PwMLuvZiWhRbr2v1WQejjHXEfZpQVrz Ypam+4vhzxKDdHG7XDwwnwq/j/3/xL2QVqzTEgBHW+daspMsvOt9MBntU I=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnwBAOa2gE2tJV2c/2dsb2JhbACYVz+MdnelcpxPhWMEhS+HL4NN X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.63,195,1299456000"; d="scan'208";a="226297290" Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Mar 2011 20:15:51 +0000 Received: from [10.33.251.197] ([10.33.251.197]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p2GKFpgJ026963 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:15:51 GMT From: Joe Salowey Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 13:17:17 -0700 Message-Id: <9D3BBEAB-767A-49BA-97D6-7E9F5D7C3E99@cisco.com> To: emu@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Subject: [Emu] Draft agenda for IETF 80 X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:14:28 -0000 Here is the draft agenda for IETF 80 IETF-80 - EMU Working Group WEDNESDAY, March 30, 2011 1300-1500 Afternoon Session I Karlin II & III ======================================== 1. Administrivia (note takers, blue sheets, agenda) - 5 Min 2. EAP Session ID - EAP-SIM and EAP-AKA - 20 Min 3. EAP Channel Bindings - Sam Hartman - 35 Min draft-ietf-emu-chbind-07 4. EAP-FAST - Nancy Cam-Winget - 20 Min draft-zhou-emu-eap-fastv2-00 5. EAP-TEAM - Glen Zorn - 20 Min draft-zorn-emu-team-02 6. Tunnel Method discussion - 20 Min From aland@deployingradius.com Wed Mar 30 05:28:36 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB09F28C17F for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 05:28:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.582 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.582 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.017, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AK0vzBS-KboA for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 05:28:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from liberty.deployingradius.com (liberty.deployingradius.com [88.191.76.128]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79CCF28C130 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 05:28:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4D932235.7050409@deployingradius.com> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 14:29:41 +0200 From: Alan DeKok User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Macintosh/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "emu@ietf.org" X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 12:28:36 -0000 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 EAP tunneled method? Please indicate Yes or No. Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is "Yes", please indicate support for one of the two proposed methods: FASTv2 or EAP-Team Alan DeKok. EMU Co-Chair From mccann.stephen@gmail.com Wed Mar 30 06:19:07 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82E9A28C174 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 06:19:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MN63hBSMiiWt for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 06:19:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D08433A6B11 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 06:18:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bwz13 with SMTP id 13so1029539bwz.31 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 06:19:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=bIrbS+T64BqIcHpxla23aVjpddX8OzcBzlOKS6aQ7b4=; b=Vn08s7fwhMu8181s76Oe5PfVpsQ1i0kXsaiRiAwDb7E6sY8hautXBYSMcXrg4IeYe4 +cdfSySbKqhVFMp7B2otR5WRtj4El6CZ2glUpF5uBGmv23t1HwwAjqPHKDXZNW4AHaQ+ 40PjwDlKJOLoE+sR1t/88x9oHxiObFbV37OQo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=ehI0qPGpdBc8asl0xe5x2qs5YeqSChVcKYnn4ah1PuiKvOb/uhmPZ7INkb6W75jAEW s6RQHJ9Th5eJ2pILTNTghZJvYwjBV42GApGbC11sU/hufwGs4ubWdG6icLwYxXvWUHeA iPd80L2VSPLzs8yJ35y5bok1LbLIXc31RJeYo= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.155.80 with SMTP id r16mr1094792bkw.36.1301491186082; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 06:19:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.23.14 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 06:19:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4D932235.7050409@deployingradius.com> References: <4D932235.7050409@deployingradius.com> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 14:19:46 +0100 Message-ID: From: Stephen McCann To: Alan DeKok Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "emu@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 13:19:07 -0000 Alan, Q1: Yes Q2: FASTv2 Kind regards Stephen McCann Research in Motion On 30 March 2011 13:29, Alan DeKok wrote: > =A0For 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 EAP tunneled method? > > =A0Please indicate Yes or No. > > Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is "Yes", please indicate > support for one of the two proposed methods: > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0FASTv2 > or > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0EAP-Team > > =A0Alan DeKok. > =A0EMU Co-Chair > _______________________________________________ > Emu mailing list > Emu@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu > From shanna@juniper.net Wed Mar 30 06:36:41 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FEAD3A6867 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 06:36:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fWvULpwMSQoz for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 06:36:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og123.obsmtp.com (exprod7og123.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.24]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D58F3A6A1C for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 06:36:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob123.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTZMySKbN+Bm3fQ8L9XkAhwrKyiP5hMJs@postini.com; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 06:38:19 PDT Received: from p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.24) by P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 06:36:16 -0700 Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::d0d1:653d:5b91:a123%11]) with mapi; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:37:47 -0400 From: Stephen Hanna To: Alan DeKok , "emu@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:37:45 -0400 Thread-Topic: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method Thread-Index: Acvu1kbJqVSVv2D8QeSwOEjFflY8QgACQiXg Message-ID: References: <4D932235.7050409@deployingradius.com> In-Reply-To: <4D932235.7050409@deployingradius.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 13:36:41 -0000 Alan, Could you set a deadline for these comments? Thanks, Steve > -----Original Message----- > From: emu-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:emu-bounces@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 >=20 > For people who didn't attend the EMU meeting at IETF, please answer > the following consensus call: >=20 > Question 1: Are you ready to make a decision on the EAP tunneled > method? >=20 > Please indicate Yes or No. >=20 > Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is "Yes", please indicate > support for one of the two proposed methods: >=20 > FASTv2 > or > EAP-Team >=20 > Alan DeKok. > EMU Co-Chair > _______________________________________________ > Emu mailing list > Emu@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu From hzhou@cisco.com Wed Mar 30 06:48:50 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74BFA3A6B5B for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 06:48:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.532 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uC6KO+mDcT1R for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 06:48:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 730EE3A6B5A for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 06:48:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=hzhou@cisco.com; l=647; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1301493028; x=1302702628; h=date:subject:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding; bh=AICgr3YkH9LTvz84zqjhRlTFvppDia7Zq2XclkofpbY=; b=l8VGXTpnjCWe2PDqu88SD0YW+gMIDToAKNIHbPcoFl0H/YsggiX+L0ld /ghg1j7rM0k+SkvfAFM+9ZyO2QV9Y8lmrYwqfBFg9LqZPfgExCU1VMV5j cfHMKbiuXw6zkXrkDczqRo/4Nzvalgh9KXhQ9g1PvC5yFZVLOb0t0JNBM 0=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhcFALYzk02tJXG//2dsb2JhbAClTgJ3iHmYD5xehWoEjQaDWw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.63,268,1299456000"; d="scan'208";a="327429001" Received: from rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com ([173.37.113.191]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Mar 2011 13:50:28 +0000 Received: from xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com [72.163.62.200]) by rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p2UDoS5e029417; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 13:50:28 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-202.cisco.com ([72.163.62.209]) by xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:50:27 -0500 Received: from 64.101.222.146 ([64.101.222.146]) by XMB-RCD-202.cisco.com ([72.163.62.209]) via Exchange Front-End Server email.cisco.com ([72.163.62.205]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 13:50:27 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.28.0.101117 Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:50:24 -0400 From: Hao Zhou To: Alan DeKok , "emu@ietf.org" Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method Thread-Index: Acvu4Wr5QE9CYsKkMkK3mYmgxhRbWA== In-Reply-To: <4D932235.7050409@deployingradius.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2011 13:50:28.0251 (UTC) FILETIME=[6D8276B0:01CBEEE1] Subject: Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 13:48:50 -0000 Q1: Yes. Q2: FASTv2 On 3/30/11 8:29 AM, "Alan DeKok" 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 EAP tunneled method? > > Please indicate Yes or No. > > Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is "Yes", please indicate > support for one of the two proposed methods: > > FASTv2 > or > EAP-Team > > Alan DeKok. > EMU Co-Chair > _______________________________________________ > Emu mailing list > Emu@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu From aland@deployingradius.com Wed Mar 30 09:42:38 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D7173A6B7C for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:42:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.583 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.583 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.016, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1Uo0clSzpDOA for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:42:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from liberty.deployingradius.com (liberty.deployingradius.com [88.191.76.128]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94BD03A6A4D for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:42:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4D935DDD.8000301@deployingradius.com> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 18:44:13 +0200 From: Alan DeKok User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Macintosh/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Hanna References: <4D932235.7050409@deployingradius.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "emu@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 16:42:38 -0000 Stephen Hanna wrote: > Alan, > > Could you set a deadline for these comments? Thursday April 14. That gives us 2 weeks, which is usual for a consensus call. Alan DeKok. From sunseawq@huawei.com Thu Mar 31 02:15:24 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE9BB3A6B00 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 02:15:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.495 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id luyIUBF7evu6 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 02:15:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DF0A3A6AD5 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 02:15:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LIX00F9P0C5ME@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for emu@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 17:14:29 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LIX00EZY0C5OW@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for emu@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 17:14:29 +0800 (CST) Received: from jys1037575 (dhcp-104a.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.16.74]) by szxml11-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LIX00C5J0BRXJ@szxml11-in.huawei.com>; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 17:14:29 +0800 (CST) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 11:14:10 +0200 From: Qin Wu To: Alan DeKok , emu@ietf.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <4D932235.7050409@deployingradius.com> Subject: Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:15:24 -0000 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" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 2:29 PM Subject: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method > 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 EAP tunneled method? > > Please indicate Yes or No. > > Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is "Yes", please indicate > support for one of the two proposed methods: > > FASTv2 > or > EAP-Team > > Alan DeKok. > EMU Co-Chair > _______________________________________________ > Emu mailing list > Emu@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu >