Re: [tram] Two new authentication mechanisms

+1

Supporting adoption of two separate drafts. 
(And if time permits I will try to implement it on the client side.)

.-.
Pål-Erik

On 07 Jul 2014, at 19:10, Oleg Moskalenko <mom040267@gmail.com> wrote:

> +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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tram mailing list
> tram@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram