Re: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT
" latze@angry-red-pla.net " <latze@angry-red-pla.net> Thu, 04 August 2011 06:35 UTC
Return-Path: <latze@angry-red-pla.net>
X-Original-To: nea@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nea@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E754C11E80F5 for <nea@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 23:35:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.99
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.99 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=1.456, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SARE_SUB_ENC_UTF8=0.152]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rw6xbo0lYt7w for <nea@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 23:35:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from thuvia.angry-red-pla.net (thuvia.angry-red-pla.net [83.169.33.217]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F3F811E80F2 for <nea@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 23:35:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gprs29.swisscom-mobile.ch ([193.247.250.29] helo=[10.131.192.74]) by thuvia.angry-red-pla.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_MD5:16) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <latze@angry-red-pla.net>) id 1QorX7-0005JS-KZ; Thu, 04 Aug 2011 08:35:55 +0200
To: "Susan Thomson (sethomso)" <sethomso@cisco.com>, nea@ietf.org
From: "latze@angry-red-pla.net" <latze@angry-red-pla.net>
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 08:35:52 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_7_1312439752251"
Message-Id: <E1QorX7-0005JS-KZ@thuvia.angry-red-pla.net>
Subject: Re: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT
X-BeenThere: nea@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Endpoint Assessment discussion list <nea.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/nea>, <mailto:nea-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nea>
List-Post: <mailto:nea@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nea-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea>, <mailto:nea-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 06:35:44 -0000
PT-EAP ----- Reply message ----- From: "Susan Thomson (sethomso)" <sethomso@cisco.com> To: <nea@ietf.org> Subject: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT Date: Tue, Aug 2, 2011 11:04 pm At IETF81 and several prior IETF meetings, as well as on the mailing list, the WG has evaluated the pros and cons of 2 architectural approaches to carrying posture within an EAP tunnel method: - EAP method http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hanna-nea-pt-eap-01.txt - EAP TLV. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-cam-winget-eap-tlv-03.txt So far, there has been no WG consensus to adopt one architecture versus the other. (At the recent F2F meeting in Quebec City, the consensus check at the meeting showed an equal number in favor of each approach.) This email is a final call to determine WG consensus on the L2 PT approach. The consensus check is to choose one of the following 3 options: 1) PT-EAP approach 2) NEA-TLV approach 3) Neither (please state the reason if you choose this option) Please respond to the above question by Tues Aug 16 at 5pm PT. Please do so even if you have already expressed your opinion, either at a WG meeting or on the mailing list. The answer can be as brief as selecting option 1), 2) or 3). If you would like to add your reasons for your choice, that would be appreciated too, especially if you choose option 3). If we have consensus on the mailing list, we will adopt the selected approach. If we still do not have consensus, the WG chairs and AD (Stephen Farrell) have agreed that the AD will make a decision. The proponents of both approaches have agreed to abide by this decision. This resolution plan was discussed at the F2F meeting at IETF81. This plan was also communicated to the list in an email on Jun 30, 2011. No objections have been received. In either case, the individual submission corresponding to the selected approach will be adopted as a -00 NEA WG I-D, and we will proceed with the normal process of editing the document within the WG. Thanks Susan ------------------ References: IETF81 audio session (start at approx 44 mins into session): http://www.ietf.org/audio/ietf81/ietf81-2103-20110727-1256-pm.mp3 IETF81 draft meeting minutes: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nea/minutes _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea
- [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT Susan Thomson (sethomso)
- Re: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT Ira McDonald
- Re: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT Stephen Hanna
- Re: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT Sanchez, Mauricio (HP Networking)
- Re: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT Hao Zhou
- Re: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT Frank Yeh Jr
- Re: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT Alan DeKok
- Re: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT Andreas Steffen
- Re: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT Joe Salowey
- Re: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT Klaas Wierenga
- Re: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT Lisa Lorenzin
- Re: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT Marc Linsner
- [Nea] Protecting L2 PT when proxying Stephen Hanna
- Re: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT Mike Fratto
- Re: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT john.willis
- Re: [Nea] Protecting L2 PT when proxying Joe Salowey
- Re: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT Joe Salowey
- Re: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT Jouni Malinen
- Re: [Nea] Protecting L2 PT when proxying Stephen Hanna
- Re: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT Nancy Cam-Winget
- Re: [Nea] Protecting L2 PT when proxying Joe Salowey
- Re: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT latze@angry-red-pla.net
- Re: [Nea] Protecting L2 PT when proxying Stephen Hanna
- Re: [Nea] Protecting L2 PT when proxying Mike Fratto
- Re: [Nea] Protecting L2 PT when proxying Joe Salowey
- Re: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT kaushik narayan
- Re: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT Paul Sangster
- Re: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT Stephen McCann