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

[kaushik narayan <[e-mail]>]

I prefer EAP TLV method.

I was wondering whether this question should be debated in EMU as well since the question is less
about NEA and more about how to use EAP as a carrier for NEA. EAP-TNC creates an EAP method to  
carry application data (posture is pretty much an opaque data exchange for EAP)  and creates a precedent 
for other EAP methods to defined to carry arbitrary data sets. I would presume the EMU folks might want to
say something about that.

regards,
 kaushik 








On Aug 2, 2011, at 2:04 PM, Susan Thomson (sethomso) 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea