RE: [Emu] WG consensus on charter update
Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] scribbled on Friday, January 25, 2008 12:45 AM: So far I have only seen responses from Dan Harkins on the proposed charter update ( http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/emu/current/msg00712.html ) I'm a little confused: I interpreted the above-referenced message as a call for consensus. Was that correct? If so, it seems like the deadline came went w/only the responses you mentioned from Dan. Therefore, the (visible) consensus of the group (excluding yourself, as Chair) expressed during the period of time allotted for comments was that the password-based method (w/no tunnel involved) should _not_ be removed from the charter, right? If the people supporting the removal couldn't be bothered to send comments for 2 weeks, I'm not sure that their opinion should count afterwards: either there was a deadline or there wasn't (surely we don't just continue to ask the question until we get the answer we want). OTOH, if the message was _not_ a consensus call then it's not clear to me what the purpose was... Please respond on the list if you have reviewed the charter and have comments or if you approve of the current text. Also make sure to review the milestones. Thanks, Joe ___ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu ___ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
RE: [Emu] WG consensus on charter update
-Original Message- From: Lakshminath Dondeti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 1:40 PM To: Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) Cc: emu@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Emu] WG consensus on charter update I know it's after the deadline, but I think we should clarify some of the text to avoid debates on interpretation later. (Note: this is going to sound like nit picking :) ). For instance, on, Enable a TLS-based EAP method to support channel bindings. So as to enable RFC 2716bis to focus solely on clarifications to the existing protocol, this effort will be handled in a separate document. This item will not generate a new method, rather it will enhance EAP-TLS or the TLS based tunnel method. Which is the TLS based tunnel method that is going to be enhanced? [Joe] This the TLS based tunnel method is the method the working group will be working. Would it help if I said the above TLS based tunnel method We need to specify what we mean by channel bindings. Is there an agreed upon definition that we can refer to? [Joe] I think we are working towards this, I will check with the Ads to see where this is at. I don't think we should hold up the charter definition for this. regards, Lakshminath On 1/24/2008 9:44 AM, Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) wrote: So far I have only seen responses from Dan Harkins on the proposed charter update ( http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/emu/current/msg00712.html ) Please respond on the list if you have reviewed the charter and have comments or if you approve of the current text. Also make sure to review the milestones. Thanks, Joe ___ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu ___ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
RE: [Emu] WG consensus on charter update
Joe: I am ok with the updated charter, with the following minor comments: 1. Should we add crypto-agility to the requirements of tunnel method? And maybe strong shared secret method as well? 2. Move this paragraph right after the tunnel method paragraph, as it reference the tunnel method above. This way if causes less confusion with the TLS based channel binding method. A mechanism meeting RFC 3748 and RFC 4017 requirements that makes use of existing password databases such as AAA databases. This item will be based on the above tunnel method. 3. TLS based channel binding paragraph: Enable a TLS-based EAP method to support channel bindings. So as to enable RFC 2716bis to focus solely on clarifications to the existing protocol, this effort will be handled in a separate document. This item will not generate a new method, rather it will enhance EAP-TLS or the TLS based tunnel method. What does will not generate a new method mean? If we enhance EAP-TLS, we are likely need to create a new method ID (the current one doesn't have a version field). Even if we do, likely we will create backward compatibility issue. Sound like the tunnel method is better, so we creating minimum new EAP methods. If we choose the TLS based tunnel method, the requirements already cover the channel binding. Why don't we just make the decision now and say it is part of the tunnel method, or at least make the minimum operation mode of the tunnel method is just TLS with channel binding? -Original Message- From: Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 12:45 PM To: emu@ietf.org Subject: [Emu] WG consensus on charter update So far I have only seen responses from Dan Harkins on the proposed charter update ( http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/emu/current/msg00712.html ) Please respond on the list if you have reviewed the charter and have comments or if you approve of the current text. Also make sure to review the milestones. Thanks, Joe ___ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu ___ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
RE: [Emu] WG consensus on charter update
I apologize for not responding earlier. I have reviewed the proposed charter revision and milestones. I think they are good and should be approved. Thanks, Steve -Original Message- From: Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 12:45 PM To: emu@ietf.org Subject: [Emu] WG consensus on charter update So far I have only seen responses from Dan Harkins on the proposed charter update ( http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/emu/current/msg00712.html ) Please respond on the list if you have reviewed the charter and have comments or if you approve of the current text. Also make sure to review the milestones. Thanks, Joe ___ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu ___ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
