I want to make sure that we have distinguished between the two statements 1. The server says that I don't support these specific attributes and 2. The server does not tell me that it did or did not do matching of some attributes.
The first I think is totally optional, but the second is necessary for the tunnel draft and should be made explicit in this draft as something that needs to be done. I will be reading this document with this in mind. Jim > -----Original Message----- > From: emu-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:emu-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Sam Hartman > Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 12:34 PM > To: Hao Zhou > Cc: Sam Hartman; emu@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Emu] Submitted 10 > > I'll respond to the question of channel binding support now. I think the > current text permits an EAP method to not send channel binding if it knows > the server fails to support it. If your method can discover that and > optimistically avoid sending channel binding that's fine. > > I think we discussed the flow in a fair bit of detail and I think we have > consensus on the current flow including the lack of server telling the peer > which channel binding attributes it supports. As an individual, I do not > support opening that up again, although if there is WG consensus to make a > change we should do so. > _______________________________________________ > Emu mailing list > Emu@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
