On Dec 23, 2022, at 10:12 PM, Peter Yee wrote:
>
> Based on the supportive and engaged feedback on the mailing list, the chairs
> are declaring rfc7170bis adopted by the WG. It looks like we're already
> getting into a discussion of the content of the draft, which is fine.
>
> Alan, please submi
Based on the supportive and engaged feedback on the mailing list, the chairs
are declaring rfc7170bis adopted by the WG. It looks like we're already
getting into a discussion of the content of the draft, which is fine.
Alan, please submit a WG version of the document for approval. From there,
the
Alan DeKok wrote:
> We have "something" implemented today as TEAPv1. Whatever it is,
> it's shipped by multiple vendors on tens of millions of devices. Plus,
> there are multiple other vendors planning on shipping TEAP support in
> Q2 2023.
> We can rev TEAP, but we can
> On Dec 23, 2022, at 6:07 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> I don't see TEAPv2 as much more than functioning TEAPv1. But if there are
> people out there who have a functioning TEAPv1, and we have tested against
> other vendors, we will hear from ALL of them if we break something. That is-
> I don't wa
Hi Alan,
On 22.12.22 23:45, Alan DeKok wrote:
So I'd like to know what would be in TEAPv2, and what issues there would be if we just
documented TEAPv1 "as implemented".
I don't see TEAPv2 as much more than functioning TEAPv1. But if there
are people out there who have a functioning TEAPv
On Dec 22, 2022, at 5:00 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> I view this differently. First, we don't have good deployment numbers for
> TEAP. If we bump the version and nobody is using TEAP, then nobody will
> care. If we don't bump the version and people ARE using TEAP, we'll get to
> hear from every
Alan,
I view this differently. First, we don't have good deployment numbers
for TEAP. If we bump the version and nobody is using TEAP, then nobody
will care. If we don't bump the version and people ARE using TEAP,
we'll get to hear from everyone who cares! From a code standpoint, I
imagin
I would like to see this draft adopted. I need to work on implementing
TEAP. For this I'd like to have a draft that I could use, and while doing
the work, help by providing comments.
Thanks,
Heikki
On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 at 00:29, Peter Yee wrote:
> This is an adoption call for RFC 7170bis
> (draf
On Dec 22, 2022, at 9:36 AM, Oleg Pekar wrote:
>
> I would like to provide comments as well. We should also bump the version of
> the protocol so as not to harm the existing implementations (yes, they
> implemented the spec with filed errata, the spec is sometimes ambiguous but
> those impleme
I would like to provide comments as well. We should also bump the version
of the protocol so as not to harm the existing implementations (yes, they
implemented the spec with filed errata, the spec is sometimes ambiguous but
those implementations are already on the market).
Regards,
Oleg
On Fri, D
I support adoption of this draft and will read it and provide
comments.
regards,
Dan.
On 12/15/22 2:29 PM, Peter Yee wrote:
This is an adoption call for RFC 7170bis (draft-dekok-emu-rfc7170bis-00)[1].
I'd call this mostly a formality since it's pretty clear the WG is
interested in updat
I support adoption.
> On Dec 15, 2022, at 5:29 PM, Peter Yee wrote:
>
> This is an adoption call for RFC 7170bis (draft-dekok-emu-rfc7170bis-00)[1].
> I'd call this mostly a formality since it's pretty clear the WG is
> interested in updating TEAP and TEAP was already adopted by the WG (back in
12 matches
Mail list logo
