Re: [tram] Two new authentication mechanisms

+1

I support the adoption of separate drafts.

Oleg

> On Jul 7, 2014, at 4:23 AM, "Anca Zamfir (ancaz)" <ancaz@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> +1
> Support adoption as separate documents.
> -anca
> 
>> On 7/1/14 10:00 AM, "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <rmohanr@cisco.com> wrote:
>> 
>> +1
>> 
>> Support adoption of both the documents and should be left as seperate.
>> 
>> Ram
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: "Gonzalo Salgueiro   (gsalguei)" <gsalguei@cisco.com>
>> Date: Tuesday, 1 July 2014 12:28 am
>> To: Simon Perreault <simon@per.reau.lt>
>> Cc: "tram@ietf.org" <tram@ietf.org>
>> Subject: Re: [tram] Two new authentication mechanisms
>> 
>>> +1
>>> 
>>> Support adoption of both docs and they should be left as separate.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> Gonzalo
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jun 30, 2014, at 2:46 PM, Alan Johnston <alan.b.johnston@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Agree with Tiru on both points.
>>>> 
>>>> - Alan -
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
>>>> <tireddy@cisco.com> wrote:
>>>> I support adoption of both drafts. I think there is no interaction
>>>> required between these two drafts. For example If third party
>>>> authorization is used then ORIGIN attribute could be used by the TURN
>>>> server for logging purpose.
>>>> 
>>>> -Tiru
>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: tram [mailto:tram-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Simon
>>>> Perreault
>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 6:51 PM
>>>>> To: tram@ietf.org
>>>>> Subject: [tram] Two new authentication mechanisms
>>>>> 
>>>>> TRAMsters,
>>>>> 
>>>>> We are soliciting discussion on the potential adoption as
>>>> working-group
>>>>> documents of these two drafts:
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-johnston-tram-stun-origin
>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-reddy-tram-turn-third-party-authz
>>>>> 
>>>>> They would be targeted at fulfilling milestone 4 ("Nov 2014 - Send
>>>> new
>>>>> authentication mechanism(s) to IESG for publication as Proposed
>>>> Standard").
>>>>> 
>>>>> If you would like to see one or both of the drafts adopted, or if you
>>>> are opposed,
>>>>> please explain why. Authors, we will assume you are for adoption of
>>>> your own
>>>>> drafts.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please consider the interactions between the two drafts. Is there
>>>> anything
>>>>> interesting or problematic? What about overlap in function? Is there
>>>> any? If so,
>>>>> is it necessary or problematic?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Let's take two weeks to discuss this.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Simon & Gonzalo
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> tram mailing list
>>>>> tram@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> tram mailing list
>>>> tram@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> tram mailing list
>>>> tram@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> tram mailing list
>>> tram@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> tram mailing list
>> tram@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tram mailing list
> tram@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram