Subject: Re: [Emu] Channel Binding Consensus Call

From: Joe Salowey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 09:10:50 -0700

The consensus for the first topic affirms the current direction of the document.   

The consensus for the second question is a bit rougher, but indicates a preference for option 1.  

The document needs to be revised to reflect any changes as a result of this call. 

On Apr 18, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Joe Salowey wrote:

> This is a consensus call to validate the direction the draft-ietf-emu-chbind-07 and confirm the consensus around the encoding of the channel binding TLV.  Please respond to the following questions by May 2, 2011.  
> 
> 1.  Do you agree with the direction taken in draft-ietf-emu-chbind-07.  More specifically the usage of a channel binding specific TLV, the support of multiple name spaces, and that the server indicates to the client what attributes were validated.  
> 
> 2.  Two encoding method where described in IETF-80 in the following presentation http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/80/slides/emu-1.pdf.  Do you prefer encoding option 1, where attributes are encoded individually or option 2 where attributes in the same namespace are grouped together.  
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Joe
> _______________________________________________
> Emu mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu