Re: [tram] Two new authentication mechanisms

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
>