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 protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
