IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tram] Two new authentication mechanisms

Simon Perreault <sperreault@jive.com> Sun, 13 July 2014 14:01 UTC

Return-Path: <sperreault@jive.com>
X-Original-To: tram@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tram@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 279341B2BB9 for <tram@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Jul 2014 07:01:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Lbzaex_IZ4M2 for <tram@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Jul 2014 07:01:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qa0-f41.google.com (mail-qa0-f41.google.com [209.85.216.41]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F4121B2BB8 for <tram@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Jul 2014 07:01:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id j7so1785262qaq.28 for <tram@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Jul 2014 07:01:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=live4qxChUkFzlbAstsPANw0rIVqgDzz0cho7z/L4aE=; b=h1A8edWP1CQ9oLeZ7QS7jY7dawgaSRnQ9/UGZyWajQAJi9+nX4bB8TrgOAj0DXyaF5 7kA8J4yDXPJuQVRjTl1zSihhLhibr7z5q9Ckya8o4Ve7N4hl/y8b5W4fKeGOR/M//Cjh ifYx0ZuRy0BXttHjPtuqa3ss/6MryTaRLYvvOyO1Vg3kNCAzDefQM5M13poPKMmd9oqa dcq5J21z/t9HNXyTz34vKhJrxNNfXXvpZewfM7ZwTy6DaSXeM27omwTiLg14PkocCd0X ZfrySIjdReuN98Lr3IffabO3PU0oL7+vxcVfURhM6S2uOkgkQ7BCnfsQIz8PEiwn1yyU pRlw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkZQ9tuM/I2BY7KpvfnUusjIv0JsNmXlU1anV/LeWnzibqMJBz7eHtnaVSusrWtzUg4U5n5
X-Received: by 10.224.60.137 with SMTP id p9mr13597767qah.70.1405260100104; Sun, 13 Jul 2014 07:01:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.96] (modemcable233.42-178-173.mc.videotron.ca. [173.178.42.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id m92sm8316417qgd.29.2014.07.13.07.01.39 for <tram@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 13 Jul 2014 07:01:39 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <53C2913C.2010906@jive.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 10:01:32 -0400
From: Simon Perreault <sperreault@jive.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tram@ietf.org
References: <53AD6FD6.3080205@per.reau.lt>
In-Reply-To: <53AD6FD6.3080205@per.reau.lt>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tram/MyLkjPBI_shjvnSmd69jrdkQFs4
Subject: Re: [tram] Two new authentication mechanisms
X-BeenThere: tram@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussing the creation of a Turn Revised And Modernized \(TRAM\) WG, which goal is to consolidate the various initiatives to update TURN and STUN." <tram.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tram>, <mailto:tram-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tram/>
List-Post: <mailto:tram@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tram-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram>, <mailto:tram-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 14:01:43 -0000

Consensus is clear: TRAM adopts the two drafts.

Thanks all,
Simon & Gonzalo

Le 2014-06-27 09:21, Simon Perreault a écrit :
> 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email