1. Yes 2. Option 1
Thanks, Nancy. On 4/26/11 9:46 AM, "Joseph Salowey" <[email protected]> wrote: > This consensus call closes next week. This is an important working group work > item. If you have an opinion about this issue please send it to the list so we > can keep the work moving forward. > > Thanks, > > Joe > 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 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
