Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) wrote:
Please send comments no later than 8/27 so we have time to prepare a
response.
quick first glance comments:
- The EAP-methods they evaluate are not very much in line with what I
think are the most widespread ones (is that because the other ones are
only dra
> Please respond FOR or AGAINST making the input and output lengths
> independent. This consensus call will last until August 19.
FOR
___
Emu mailing list
Emu@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
1. intro
reference for PEAP is missing, too bad the drafts have expired...
3.8 resource constrained environments
This is a bit a fuzzy paragraph. I feel that the SHOULD here invites for
developing 'weaker' methods in order to satisfy this goal. I would
prefer to leave this out altogether. As
Hi Katrin,
I have reviewed your draft and I think the content is in principle in
pretty good shape, see my comments further below. I have however a more
fundamental concern that I would like to hear your (and others') opinion
about.
I have the feeling that the draft is too complicated becaus
s concern and whether the
current draft should be modified accordingly. You'll find my
opinion on this matter among my other replies below.
Regards,
Katrin
-----Original Message-
From: Klaas Wierenga [mailto:kl...@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 3:26 AM
To: Hoeper Katrin-QWKN37
Cc
Joe, Katrin,
A few comments
Thanks for the clarifications, I think I understand better now.
Comments inline.
Joe,
Thank you for bringing this up. Find my replies below:
"1. In sections 5.1 and 5.2 clarify the role of message i2 with
respect to channel bindings."
[KH] I agree with your ob
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 4/18/11 8:11 PM, Joe Salowey wrote:
Hi,
1. yes
2. option 1
I have no strong preference for either, but option 1 seems cleaner to me
(no further parsing neccesary, and I think the waste of bytes is not
that big that we need to be too worried abou
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/23/11 10:12 PM, Dan Harkins wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> In Quebec there was a discussion on what we're gonna call the
> tunnel method. The candidates discussed were:
>
> - ITEM -- Internet Tunnel EAP Method - ETA -- Extensible Tunneled
> Authenticati
FYI
Begin forwarded message:
> Resent-From:
> From: IETF Secretariat
> Subject: ID Tracker State Update Notice:
>
> Date: September 27, 2013 4:25:14 PM GMT+02:00
> Resent-To: , ,
> ,
> To: ,
>
>
> IESG has approved the document and state has been changed to
> Approved-announcement sent
