Jim: The chbind draft already has that covered by the use of the code. Tunnel method defines the channel-binding TLV that wraps the channel data defined in chbind draft, so I think we are ok.
On 10/21/11 4:13 PM, "Jim Schaad" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> Sam Hartman >> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 12:34 PM >> To: Hao Zhou >> Cc: Sam Hartman; [email protected] >> 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 >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu > _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
