Re: [Nea] Verifying consensus on next steps re TLS/TCP-based PT

Stephen Hanna <shanna@juniper.net> Tue, 12 April 2011 06:14 UTC

Return-Path: <shanna@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: nea@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nea@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D2D0E0740 for <nea@ietfc.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 23:14:12 -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=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q8JcsXqvOtIb for <nea@ietfc.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 23:14:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og110.obsmtp.com (exprod7og110.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.173]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F36E5E073E for <nea@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 23:14:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob110.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTaPtsk0aCIuOVzndoJq1bdeyYZRHFbqd@postini.com; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 23:14:11 PDT
Received: from p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.25) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 23:11:58 -0700
Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::c126:c633:d2dc:8090%11]) with mapi; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 02:13:49 -0400
From: Stephen Hanna <shanna@juniper.net>
To: "nea@ietf.org" <nea@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 02:13:48 -0400
Thread-Topic: Verifying consensus on next steps re TLS/TCP-based PT
Thread-Index: Acv4rz3tc1/J9hl0R9y+k9A9ge1wCgAKYZXg
Message-ID: <AC6674AB7BC78549BB231821ABF7A9AEB52FF26BBB@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net>
References: <043901FAFD488D44ACC9CCED00470BDC04B29BEB@XMB-RCD-105.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <043901FAFD488D44ACC9CCED00470BDC04B29BEB@XMB-RCD-105.cisco.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: [Nea] Verifying consensus on next steps re TLS/TCP-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, 12 Apr 2011 06:14:12 -0000

Support

> -----Original Message-----
> From: nea-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:nea-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Susan Thomson (sethomso)
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 9:16 PM
> To: nea@ietf.org
> Subject: [Nea] Verifying consensus on next steps re TLS/TCP-based PT
> 
> At IETF80, there was a discussion on next steps regarding the
> individual
> submissions for a TLS/TCP-based PT, and an EAP-based PT.
> 
> Specifically, there are 2 proposals for a TLS/TCP-based transport
> documented in the following I-Ds:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sangster-nea-pt-tls-02.txt
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-cam-winget-eap-tlv-03.txt
> 
> At the meeting, there was unanimous consensus to merge the TLS/TCP
> proposals in the above I-Ds as follows:
> - Support client authentication using the SASL framework
> - Support vendor extensions
> - Support error handling
> 
> The authors of the above I-Ds have agreed to work on a joint WG
> submission.
> 
> The chairs would like to verify this consensus on the mailing
> list. Please review the proposal and respond by Monday, 5pm PT on
> Apr 18. Indicate in your response whether you support the changes.
> If you support the changes, a one word response ("Support") is
> sufficient. If not, please explain your concerns and suggest how
> they could be resolved.
> 
> Thanks
> Susan
> ----------------------------
> 
> Note: No consensus has yet been reached on the EAP-based proposals, in
> particular, whether to use an EAP method or EAP-TLV for carrying
> posture
> information. The next step is to document the strengths and weaknesses
> of these 2 approaches to help make a decision.
> _______________________________________________
> Nea mailing list
> Nea@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea