From jsalowey@cisco.com Tue Nov 8 13:56:12 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FF0311E80B1 for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 13:56:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.417 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.417 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.182, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QxKK5UYbixu3 for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 13:56:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtv-iport-4.cisco.com (mtv-iport-4.cisco.com [173.36.130.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2539811E80AD for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 13:56:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=jsalowey@cisco.com; l=178; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1320789372; x=1321998972; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id: to:mime-version; bh=R4Mm8a13ps+4T+fur9oUimH1sJjk7SEGD2mrO3l6ih4=; b=GWvChDVpdbFg4MnqT05HR0BnONmqX22gFdXjyrotZLRFgKYUdY7NvmeE HkAKw/KaWLzOZfRT/7U581lsW3EWVPqALzo6nIgDLKky622rUWdRBkPp5 zorllEq3y52BZqsYSnMAL6Js+U2onqyOw2M5th0Pb8fzA4Tv0bj+h4JJS A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApkKABOluU6rRDoI/2dsb2JhbABEmmCEAwIBihWBJoEFggsBJ4IZGYdol2KBJgGebIhKYwSIC4wWhTGMXg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,479,1315180800"; d="scan'208";a="13046307" Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by mtv-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Nov 2011 21:56:06 +0000 Received: from [10.33.251.254] ([10.33.251.254]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pA8Lu4Ln020226 for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 21:56:05 GMT From: Joe Salowey Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 13:56:17 -0800 Message-Id: <2A778B32-CD81-4F10-BC61-E01EA7863B86@cisco.com> To: emu@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Subject: [Emu] IETF 82 agenda X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 21:56:12 -0000 THe IETF 82 EMU agenda is posted in the usual place. Please let me know = if you have any corrections. http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/agenda/emu.txt Cheers, Joe= From turners@ieca.com Mon Nov 14 17:15:52 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D7FB11E8134 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 17:15:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.275 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.275 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.010, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ihgUXBCEbV8A for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 17:15:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from gateway.websitewelcome.com (gateway01.websitewelcome.com [69.56.212.19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3520611E819E for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 17:15:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by gateway.websitewelcome.com (Postfix, from userid 5007) id 034B4E8A12C16; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 19:15:45 -0600 (CST) Received: from gator1743.hostgator.com (gator1743.hostgator.com [184.173.253.227]) by gateway.websitewelcome.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC73AE8A12BF2 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 19:15:44 -0600 (CST) Received: from [130.129.38.246] (port=53666 helo=dhcp-26f6.meeting.ietf.org) by gator1743.hostgator.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQ7cm-0004AR-Ms for emu@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 19:15:44 -0600 Message-ID: <4EC1BD3F.9080604@ieca.com> Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 09:15:43 +0800 From: Sean Turner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: emu@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - gator1743.hostgator.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - ieca.com X-BWhitelist: no X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-Source-Sender: dhcp-26f6.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.38.246]:53666 X-Source-Auth: sean.turner@ieca.com X-Email-Count: 2 X-Source-Cap: ZG9tbWdyNDg7ZG9tbWdyNDg7Z2F0b3IxNzQzLmhvc3RnYXRvci5jb20= Subject: [Emu] Numbering of EAP Lower Layers Registry X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 01:15:52 -0000 Sam, Is there a reason that the registry values aren't 1-9? I know there were other values there originally and they were dropped, just curious why they weren't renumbered. spt From hartmans@mit.edu Mon Nov 14 22:38:04 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 937361F0DCD for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 22:38:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.265 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 11fMhMijivNS for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 22:38:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.suchdamage.org (permutation-city.suchdamage.org [69.25.196.28]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 145AF1F0DCA for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 22:38:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (dhcp-552c.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.85.44]) (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 7927D20DE9; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 01:38:43 -0500 (EST) Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id E3B5A435A; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 01:38:00 -0500 (EST) From: Sam Hartman To: Sean Turner References: <4EC1BD3F.9080604@ieca.com> Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 01:38:00 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4EC1BD3F.9080604@ieca.com> (Sean Turner's message of "Tue, 15 Nov 2011 09:15:43 +0800") 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 Cc: emu@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Emu] Numbering of EAP Lower Layers Registry X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 06:38:04 -0000 >>>>> "Sean" == Sean Turner writes: Sean> Sam, Is there a reason that the registry values aren't 1-9? I Sean> know there were other values there originally and they were Sean> dropped, just curious why they weren't renumbered. First, sorry for coming so late to the meeting. That was not some passive-agressive thing or the like, I just was sure that EMU was this afternoon at 1300. So I'm sorry I was not there for the discussion of the document I'm editing. I didn't renumber because I was concerned people might already be using these values. However, as it turns out, we haven't actually allocated the RADIUS AVP, so there's no way people can be using this already. I'm happy to renumber the registrations if people like. --Sam From jsalowey@cisco.com Wed Nov 16 01:43:00 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C882021F94A4; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 01:43:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -108.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-108.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fe8AESElMEyR; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 01:43:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from ams-iport-4.cisco.com (ams-iport-4.cisco.com [144.254.224.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DEBE21F94E2; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 01:42:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=jsalowey@cisco.com; l=845; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1321436577; x=1322646177; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id: cc:to:mime-version; bh=PZ8Ep+1hIQPPfuX6+7vMBK3JYH0dLyYdpBDCtCqEn4w=; b=fk77bs7rUCOKgX5joGfKHGFJVoxYQE1kp9C9G/HShr3id1g8PChshCMV nmF3scMxiDl1ywNEdUjBmO54WvbXKHGdDS9XMzsEknknetGwkJXiplBI+ i2aekArs65tydQCygIa1uPRuDk8EamZmL1kjELg9odQUeXFQg70DwG4Ct Q=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgsMAOeEw05Io8UR/2dsb2JhbAAiIalzgQWCCwEnP4FzoioBnlqHAoIyYwSIFIwgkh0 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,520,1315180800"; d="scan'208";a="3201666" Received: from bgl-core-2.cisco.com ([72.163.197.17]) by ams-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Nov 2011 09:42:55 +0000 Received: from dhcp-1319.meeting.ietf.org (hkidc-vpn-client-234-6.cisco.com [10.75.234.6]) by bgl-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pAG9gsLZ014202; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 09:42:54 GMT From: Joe Salowey Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 01:42:52 -0800 Message-Id: <8BA59309-C0A2-4F78-BA3C-99753D764EA9@cisco.com> To: saag@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: emu@ietf.org Subject: [Emu] IETF 82 EMU working group meeting summary X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 09:43:01 -0000 EMU met on Tuesday morning. EAP Channel bindings = (draft-ietf-emu-chbind-11) completed working group last call and a new = draft has been issued incorporating most of the comments. There are a = few open issues so another revision will be needed before forwarding to = IESG. Open issues on the EAP tunnel method (currently called TEAP - = draft-ietf-emu-eap-tunnel-method-01) were discussed. Proposed = resolutions from the meeting will be raised on the working group list. = We had discussion on the update of the EAP applicability statement in = draft-winter-abfab-eapapplicability-01which is currently a charter item = in the ABFAB working group. There is some question on whether this work = should be done in EMU or ABFAB as the document will need review from = both ABFAB and EMU and other groups such as NEA. =20 From ietf@augustcellars.com Thu Nov 17 16:06:24 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DC3E1F0C99 for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 16:06:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.855 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.855 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.745, BAYES_05=-1.11, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pg-rWItw-JJv for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 16:06:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp1.pacifier.net (smtp1.pacifier.net [64.255.237.171]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDCC11F0C97 for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 16:06:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from Tobias (dhcp-450f.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.69.15]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: schaad@nwlink.com) by smtp1.pacifier.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 420112CA45 for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 16:06:23 -0800 (PST) From: "Jim Schaad" To: Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 08:05:50 +0800 Message-ID: <050b01cca585$d6223060$82669120$@augustcellars.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Content-Language: en-us Thread-Index: AcylhcDBM8VNfBBgRzmketD6tg8ptg== Subject: [Emu] Channel Bindings Document X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 00:06:24 -0000 I should probably read it when I am not so tired and distracted, however I believe that all of my issues have been addressed in the last version Jim From turners@ieca.com Thu Nov 17 20:35:10 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3389E1F0C40 for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:35:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.271 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.271 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c2E9YmUO1a3r for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:35:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from gateway.websitewelcome.com (gateway16.websitewelcome.com [69.93.82.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 400C21F0C81 for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:35:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by gateway.websitewelcome.com (Postfix, from userid 5007) id A24A1415E2199; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 22:35:02 -0600 (CST) Received: from gator1743.hostgator.com (gator1743.hostgator.com [184.173.253.227]) by gateway.websitewelcome.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94825415E2175 for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 22:35:02 -0600 (CST) Received: from [130.129.37.148] (port=53308 helo=dhcp-2594.meeting.ietf.org) by gator1743.hostgator.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RRGAI-0002wX-8l; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 22:35:02 -0600 Message-ID: <4EC5E074.3030403@ieca.com> Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 12:35:00 +0800 From: Sean Turner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sam Hartman References: <4EC1BD3F.9080604@ieca.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - gator1743.hostgator.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - ieca.com X-BWhitelist: no X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-Source-Sender: dhcp-2594.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.37.148]:53308 X-Source-Auth: sean.turner@ieca.com X-Email-Count: 10 X-Source-Cap: ZG9tbWdyNDg7ZG9tbWdyNDg7Z2F0b3IxNzQzLmhvc3RnYXRvci5jb20= Cc: emu@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Emu] Numbering of EAP Lower Layers Registry X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 04:35:10 -0000 On 11/15/11 2:38 PM, Sam Hartman wrote: >>>>>> "Sean" == Sean Turner writes: > > Sean> Sam, Is there a reason that the registry values aren't 1-9? I > Sean> know there were other values there originally and they were > Sean> dropped, just curious why they weren't renumbered. > > First, sorry for coming so late to the meeting. That was not some > passive-agressive thing or the like, I just was sure that EMU was this > afternoon at 1300. So I'm sorry I was not there for the discussion of > the document I'm editing. > > > I didn't renumber because I was concerned people might already be using > these values. However, as it turns out, we haven't actually allocated > the RADIUS AVP, so there's no way people can be using this already. I'm > happy to renumber the registrations if people like. I'd just go and renumber it. spt