Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) wrote:
We had some discussion of the mandatory attributes section in Anaheim.
There was disagreement on the exact behavior of mandatory attributes.
Instead of describing a specific behavior in the requirements document I
think it would be better to include the requiremen
Did this ever get resolved?
spt
On 9/7/10 5:45 PM, Pae, Min wrote:
I agree that the text I proposed does not take other TLS based methods into
account. The AAA vendor that we are working with does include the length in
fragments other than the first, but we are working with them to get this
product of the EAP Method Update Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Sean Turner and Tim Polk.
A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-emu-eaptunnel-req/
Technical Summary
This memo defines the requirements for a tunnel-based Extensible Authentication
On 4/18/11 2:10 AM, Glen Zorn wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 4/16/2011 2:21 AM, Stephen Hanna wrote:
I agree with Katrin's count for the email poll. When combined
with the count from the meeting in Prague (since Alan asked
for only folks who didn't attend the EMU WG mee
Sam,
Is there a reason that the registry values aren't 1-9? I know there
were other values there originally and they were dropped, just curious
why they weren't renumbered.
spt
___
Emu mailing list
Emu@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo
On 11/15/11 2:38 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
"Sean" == Sean Turner writes:
Sean> Sam, Is there a reason that the registry values aren't 1-9? I
Sean> know there were other values there originally and they were
Sean> dropped, just curious why they weren
I'd like to see any comments by March 16th.
spt
On 3/12/12 4:12 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
Hi.
I'm posting a new version of the channel bindings draft in response to
AD review comments.
I've been requested to develop security considerations text in response
to attacks I wrote about on the list.
He
Steve/Sam,
I've gone ahead and entered fixes for these two as RFC editor notes to
ensure we won't forget them.
Thanks for working through this!
spt
On 5/24/12 9:07 AM, Stephen Hanna wrote:
Sam,
Thanks for addressing my comments in draft-ietf-emu-chbind-16.txt.
I'm happy with this version.
Congrats on getting this done!
spt
On 7/18/12 8:14 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote:
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6677
Title: Channel-Binding Support for Extensible Authentication
Protocol (EAP) Metho
I've got no problem initiating an IETF LC on this document, but I do
have some nits that need to be fixed before I'll add it to the IESG
telechat. Authors please let me know whether you'd like me to initiate
the IETF LC now or whether you'd like to submit a revised ID. I only do
this because
On 9/30/13 3:46 AM, Martin Stiemerling wrote:
On 09/12/2013 10:39 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
"Martin" == Martin Stiemerling writes:
Martin> Sam,
Martin> On 08/24/2013 03:41 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>> "Martin" == Martin Stiemerling
>>> writes:
>>
Martin> Hi
I volunteered a while back to review this I-D. I am just now getting around to
it and most of my comments are pretty minor so I’ll submit gh issues/PRs for
those [0][1]. I tried to respect that this is a -bis draft so I tried my best
to restrict changes to the new sections. All of these I thi
For this issue, I thought maybe it would be worth its own thread, but I also
submitted an issue for it [0]. Do not be alarmed I think there is an easy fix.
In ’09 when RFC 5488 was published, the following was true:
We assume that
SHA-256 is at least as secure as SHA-1.
But, sometime l
I will have time on an plane trip next week. Thanks for taking care of these
so quickly.
spt
> On Jan 18, 2019, at 04:20, Jari Arkko wrote:
>
> Sean: I believe I have addressed all your comments. The new draft includes
> changes; the git issues have some responses.
>
> If you can, take a lo
These changes look good to me.
spt
> On Jan 24, 2019, at 20:28, Sean Turner wrote:
>
> I will have time on an plane trip next week. Thanks for taking care of these
> so quickly.
>
> spt
>
>> On Jan 18, 2019, at 04:20, Jari Arkko wrote:
>>
>> Se
Reviewer: Sean Turner
Review result: Ready with Nits
Hi this is my ARTART review of draft-ietf-emu-aka-pfs-10. Note that I provided
comments on an early version of this I-D when it was still being working in
EMU. I am going to read this with my ARTART glasses on.
Since all of my comments were
16 matches
Mail list logo
