I agree with Katrin's count for the email poll. When combined with the count from the meeting in Prague (since Alan asked for only folks who didn't attend the EMU WG meeting in Prague), I think the total is 12 for EAP-FASTv2 and 5 for EAP-TEAM.
Thanks, Steve > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Hoeper Katrin-QWKN37 > Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 10:10 AM > To: Alan DeKok; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method > > I counted five responses: > > Q1: 5 yes > 0 no > > Q2: 3 EAP-FASTv2 > 2 EAP-TEAM > > Katrin > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Alan > > DeKok > > Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 7:55 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method > > > > > > We had 4 responses on the list, in addition to the discussion at > IETF. > > > > Q1: 4 yes > > 0 No > > > > Q2: 3 EAP-FASTv2 > > 1 EAP-TEAM > > > > The WG consensus is that EAP-FASTv2 should be the tunnel method. > > > > Alan DeKok wrote: > > > For people who didn't attend the EMU meeting at IETF, please answer > > > the following consensus call: > > > > > > Question 1: Are you ready to make a decision on the EAP tunneled > method? > > > > > > Please indicate Yes or No. > > > > > > Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is "Yes", please indicate > > > support for one of the two proposed methods: > > > > > > FASTv2 > > > or > > > EAP-Team > > > > > ... > > > Thursday April 14. That gives us 2 weeks, which is usual for a > > > consensus call. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Emu mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu > _______________________________________________ > Emu mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
