> -----Original Message----- > From: Lakshminath Dondeti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 1:40 PM > To: Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Emu] WG consensus on charter update > > I know it's after the deadline, but I think we should clarify > some of the text to avoid debates on interpretation later. > (Note: this is going to sound like nit picking :) ). > > For instance, on, > "Enable a TLS-based EAP method to support channel bindings. > So as to enable RFC 2716bis to focus solely on clarifications > to the existing protocol, this effort will be handled in a > separate document. This item will not generate a new method, > rather it will enhance EAP-TLS or the TLS based tunnel method. " > > Which is "the TLS based tunnel method" that is going to be enhanced? >
[Joe] This "the TLS based tunnel method" is the method the working group will be working. Would it help if I said "the above TLS based tunnel method" > We need to specify what we mean by channel bindings. Is > there an agreed upon definition that we can refer to? > [Joe] I think we are working towards this, I will check with the Ads to see where this is at. I don't think we should hold up the charter definition for this. > regards, > Lakshminath > > On 1/24/2008 9:44 AM, Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) wrote: > > So far I have only seen responses from Dan Harkins on the proposed > > charter update ( > > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/emu/current/msg00712.html ) > > > > Please respond on the list if you have reviewed the charter > and have > > comments or if you approve of the current text. Also make sure to > > review the milestones. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Joe > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Emu mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu > > > _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
