Re: [radext] A way forward with the DTLS document

On 6/18/2013 12:20 PM, Jim Schaad wrote:
> Forbid the multiplexing. - Just easier.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: radext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:radext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
>> Of Jouni Korhonen
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 2:25 AM
>> To: radext@ietf.org
>> Cc: Joseph Salowey (jsalowey); Alan DeKok
>> Subject: [radext] A way forward with the DTLS document - a poll for WG
>> consensus
>> Importance: High
>>
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>> We still have a sticking issue with the DTLS document on protocol
>> multiplexing raised by Joe, see:
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/radext/current/msg08459.html
>>
>> So, in order to progress things and get the (rough) WG consensus what to
>> include in the document, We ask the WG to pick up their favourite approach
>> from the two choices below. This poll ends on Tuesday 25th June EOB
> (EEST).
>>
>> 1) Forbid the protocol multiplexing i.e.,
>>     require RADIUS over port 1812.

Agree with 1, forbidding the multiplexing.

Stig

>> 2) Allow protocol multiplexing i.e.,
>>     Allow RADIUS or DTLS over port 1812.
>>
>> In both cases, DTLS would be allowed on the DTLS-only TBD port.
>> The DTLS document will then be changed accordingly to reflect the WG
>> consensus.
>>
>>
>> - Jouni & Mauricio
>> _______________________________________________
>> radext mailing list
>> radext@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext
>
> _______________________________________________
> radext mailing list
> radext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext
>

Re: [radext] A way forward with the DTLS document - a poll for WG consensus