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

Hao Zhou <hzhou@cisco.com> Wed, 03 August 2011 00:08 UTC

Return-Path: <hzhou@cisco.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 A35ED11E80F2 for <nea@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:08:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 8Sl7-30Yrprf for <nea@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:08:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E15DA11E8095 for <nea@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:08:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=hzhou@cisco.com; l=2446; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1312330103; x=1313539703; h=date:subject:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding; bh=z/TyM34eFL74tsyOLt25aCzOMwqvVMsw/bcQasZ6/nM=; b=OLgQlepEpvTdPxGY0OoEKKevkDYmS446WeSniukELmb7wnZHvNn32kiZ OQohPlImE8G8lU3h0e9FZiXVevt7o4ep63FtZwmEB2o6VrAyouBU46baW 13I14pzpdZFydX0bBbOSkkw57oM+feztml3Uzj2VaAwneO9YW90+4BB1h U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAEaROE6tJV2b/2dsb2JhbABBp1p3gUABAQEBAgEBAQEPAScCATEQDQEIDgRbIg4BAQQBEgkZh0oEn30BnlCGQgSSe4UQi3A
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,307,1309737600"; d="scan'208";a="9014498"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Aug 2011 00:08:20 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-202.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-202.cisco.com [72.163.62.201]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p7308Kws003991 for <nea@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 00:08:20 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-202.cisco.com ([72.163.62.209]) by xbh-rcd-202.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 2 Aug 2011 19:08:20 -0500
Received: from 10.21.106.183 ([10.21.106.183]) by XMB-RCD-202.cisco.com ([72.163.62.209]) via Exchange Front-End Server email.cisco.com ([128.107.191.114]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 00:08:20 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.30.0.110427
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 20:08:17 -0400
From: Hao Zhou <hzhou@cisco.com>
To: Susan Thomson <sethomso@cisco.com>, nea@ietf.org
Message-ID: <CA5E09B1.24016%hzhou@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [Nea] Consensus check on EAP-based PT
Thread-Index: AcxRV8K12t9ayfNhRg2m5tY+ll6mrAAGa8ih
In-Reply-To: <6065F7697E427240893C1B5CF41828967EF7D4@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Aug 2011 00:08:20.0311 (UTC) FILETIME=[73D0A670:01CC5171]
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: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 00:08:13 -0000

My choice is NEA-TLV.


On 8/2/11 5:04 PM, "Susan Thomson" <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