Re: [tram] Two new authentication mechanisms

+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