Re: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT

+1.  

My vote is also for approach #1 for same reasons as noted by Steve. 

-Mauricio 

-----Original Message-----
From: nea-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:nea-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Hanna
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 3:54 PM
To: nea@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT

<WG Chair Hat Off>

I prefer option 1) PT-EAP.

My reasoning is that PT-EAP has been thoroughly vetted and widely implemented over the last five years. Also, it provides the best foundation for important future extensions such as secure proxy, as highlighted by Stefan Winter's recent comments on the NEA list.

Thanks,

Steve

<WG Chair Hat On>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: nea-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:nea-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of 
> Susan Thomson (sethomso)
> Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 5:04 PM
> To: nea@ietf.org
> Subject: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT
> 
> 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 mailing list
Nea@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea