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

Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic@gmail.com> Tue, 02 August 2011 21:44 UTC

Return-Path: <blueroofmusic@gmail.com>
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 8D4A211E808F for <nea@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 14:44:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.298
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 6zRdOrn9AHbW for <nea@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 14:44:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E204211E8095 for <nea@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 14:44:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxe6 with SMTP id 6so243762fxe.31 for <nea@ietf.org>; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 14:45:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=YRmliG3l9mmFcI9PifOC7PhYJwauoKelXF87ycBYGYY=; b=aSw/9SJKw8qdcJnxhBLzj6/Mx6vuJoNWRNPSEwlgl4XAOB5eme3jUgR1uELM46Gkdg OPdr7cOm/l1S3Ppm/TFLW+ZXRL9+OHWSI8eHc0PeIgeGPUp1AIHJFNBAYbVLC3JLMqu3 pXjDdqgRUXIMuESNtpkNbmz2g7yBYuxJL6zeQ=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.16.210 with SMTP id p18mr6803532faa.71.1312321501164; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 14:45:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.223.19.68 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 14:45:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6065F7697E427240893C1B5CF41828967EF7D4@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com>
References: <6065F7697E427240893C1B5CF41828967EF7D4@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 17:45:01 -0400
Message-ID: <CAN40gSuF1ybRhU+bzXit=Zr=DmALhpy0PU=AMWtaRDMRwUNJ=A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic@gmail.com>
To: "Susan Thomson (sethomso)" <sethomso@cisco.com>, Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00151748de7ce877b304a98ca8d4"
Cc: nea@ietf.org
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: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 21:44:53 -0000

Hi,

Option 1 - PT-EAP

Cheers,
- Ira

Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG
Chair - TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SWG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
mailto:blueroofmusic@gmail.com
Christmas through April:
  579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176
  734-944-0094
May to Christmas:
  PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839
  906-494-2434



On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Susan Thomson (sethomso) <sethomso@cisco.com
> wrote:

> 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
>