IETF working group for EAP Methods Update (EMU)

headers Bernard Aboba | 2 Apr 2011 05:36

_______________________________________________
Emu mailing list
Emu <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu

_______________________________________________
Emu mailing list
Emu <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu

Answer to Question 1: YES

Answer to Question 2: FASTv2

Regards,
Katrin Hoeper

> -----Original Message-----
> From: emu-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:emu-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Alan
> DeKok
> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 7:30 AM
> To: emu <at> ietf.org
> Subject: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method
> 
> 
>   For people who didn't attend the EMU meeting at IETF, please answer
> the following consensus call:
> 
> Question 1: Are you ready to make a decision on the EAP tunneled
method?
> 
>   Please indicate Yes or No.
> 
> Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is "Yes", please indicate
> support for one of the two proposed methods:
> 
> 	FASTv2
> or
> 	EAP-Team
> 
>   Alan DeKok.
>   EMU Co-Chair
> _______________________________________________
> Emu mailing list
> Emu <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu

Draft Minutes from the EMU meeting at IETF 80 are available at

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/80/minutes/emu.txt.  

Let me know if you have any corrections.

Thanks,

Joe

Answer to Question 1: YES

Answer to Question 2: EAP-Team

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Alan DeKok <aland <at> deployingradius.com> wrote:
>  For people who didn't attend the EMU meeting at IETF, please answer
> the following consensus call:
>
> Question 1: Are you ready to make a decision on the EAP tunneled method?
>
>  Please indicate Yes or No.
>
> Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is "Yes", please indicate
> support for one of the two proposed methods:
>
>        FASTv2
> or
>        EAP-Team
>
>  Alan DeKok.
>  EMU Co-Chair
> _______________________________________________
> Emu mailing list
> Emu <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
>

--

-- 
Best regards,
Zhen

  We had 4 responses on the list, in addition to the discussion at IETF.

Q1: 4 yes
    0 No

Q2: 3 EAP-FASTv2
    1 EAP-TEAM

  The WG consensus is that EAP-FASTv2 should be the tunnel method.

Alan DeKok wrote:
> For people who didn't attend the EMU meeting at IETF, please answer
> the following consensus call:
>
> Question 1: Are you ready to make a decision on the EAP tunneled method?
>
>  Please indicate Yes or No.
>
> Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is "Yes", please indicate
> support for one of the two proposed methods:
>
>        FASTv2
> or
>        EAP-Team
>
...
>   Thursday April 14.  That gives us 2 weeks, which is usual for a
> consensus call.

I counted five responses:

Q1: 5 yes
0 no

Q2: 3 EAP-FASTv2
2 EAP-TEAM

Katrin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: emu-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:emu-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Alan
> DeKok
> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 7:55 AM
> To: emu <at> ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method
> 
> 
>   We had 4 responses on the list, in addition to the discussion at
IETF.
> 
> Q1: 4 yes
>     0 No
> 
> Q2: 3 EAP-FASTv2
>     1 EAP-TEAM
> 
>   The WG consensus is that EAP-FASTv2 should be the tunnel method.
> 
> Alan DeKok wrote:
> > For people who didn't attend the EMU meeting at IETF, please answer
> > the following consensus call:
> >
> > Question 1: Are you ready to make a decision on the EAP tunneled
method?
> >
> >  Please indicate Yes or No.
> >
> > Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is "Yes", please indicate
> > support for one of the two proposed methods:
> >
> >        FASTv2
> > or
> >        EAP-Team
> >
> ...
> >   Thursday April 14.  That gives us 2 weeks, which is usual for a
> > consensus call.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Emu mailing list
> Emu <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu

  Rough consensus people, rough consensus. How about if our esteemed
co-chairmen go behind closed doors and burn some paper. White smoke
means TEAM, black smoke means FAST.

  Dan.

On Fri, April 15, 2011 7:10 am, Hoeper Katrin-QWKN37 wrote:
> I counted five responses:
>
> Q1: 5 yes
> 0 no
>
> Q2: 3 EAP-FASTv2
> 2 EAP-TEAM
>
> Katrin
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: emu-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:emu-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Alan
>> DeKok
>> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 7:55 AM
>> To: emu <at> ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method
>>
>>
>>   We had 4 responses on the list, in addition to the discussion at
> IETF.
>>
>> Q1: 4 yes
>>     0 No
>>
>> Q2: 3 EAP-FASTv2
>>     1 EAP-TEAM
>>
>>   The WG consensus is that EAP-FASTv2 should be the tunnel method.
>>
>> Alan DeKok wrote:
>> > For people who didn't attend the EMU meeting at IETF, please answer
>> > the following consensus call:
>> >
>> > Question 1: Are you ready to make a decision on the EAP tunneled
> method?
>> >
>> >  Please indicate Yes or No.
>> >
>> > Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is "Yes", please indicate
>> > support for one of the two proposed methods:
>> >
>> >        FASTv2
>> > or
>> >        EAP-Team
>> >
>> ...
>> >   Thursday April 14.  That gives us 2 weeks, which is usual for a
>> > consensus call.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Emu mailing list
>> Emu <at> ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
> _______________________________________________
> Emu mailing list
> Emu <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
>

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 meeting in Prague),
I think the total is 12 for EAP-FASTv2 and 5 for EAP-TEAM.

Thanks,

Steve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: emu-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:emu-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Hoeper Katrin-QWKN37
> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 10:10 AM
> To: Alan DeKok; emu <at> ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method
> 
> I counted five responses:
> 
> Q1: 5 yes
> 0 no
> 
> Q2: 3 EAP-FASTv2
> 2 EAP-TEAM
> 
> Katrin
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: emu-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:emu-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Alan
> > DeKok
> > Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 7:55 AM
> > To: emu <at> ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [Emu] Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method
> >
> >
> >   We had 4 responses on the list, in addition to the discussion at
> IETF.
> >
> > Q1: 4 yes
> >     0 No
> >
> > Q2: 3 EAP-FASTv2
> >     1 EAP-TEAM
> >
> >   The WG consensus is that EAP-FASTv2 should be the tunnel method.
> >
> > Alan DeKok wrote:
> > > For people who didn't attend the EMU meeting at IETF, please answer
> > > the following consensus call:
> > >
> > > Question 1: Are you ready to make a decision on the EAP tunneled
> method?
> > >
> > >  Please indicate Yes or No.
> > >
> > > Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is "Yes", please indicate
> > > support for one of the two proposed methods:
> > >
> > >        FASTv2
> > > or
> > >        EAP-Team
> > >
> > ...
> > >   Thursday April 14.  That gives us 2 weeks, which is usual for a
> > > consensus call.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Emu mailing list
> > Emu <at> ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
> _______________________________________________
> Emu mailing list
> Emu <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu

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 meeting in Prague),
> I think the total is 12 for EAP-FASTv2 and 5 for EAP-TEAM.

  I've gone back and reviewed my EMU folder, and Katrin is correct.
Sorry for the miscount.

  As you not, this does not change the rough consensus of the WG, where
the majority at IETF supported FASTv2.

  Alan DeKok.

Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun

				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30

3	April 2013
16	March 2013
14	February 2013
2	January 2013
4	November 2012
31	October 2012
11	September 2012
16	July 2012
13	June 2012
20	May 2012
12	April 2012
39	March 2012
18	February 2012
26	January 2012
3	December 2011
6	November 2011
50	October 2011
5	September 2011
30	August 2011
7	July 2011
5	June 2011
44	May 2011
30	April 2011
13	March 2011
10	February 2011
6	January 2011
9	December 2010
4	November 2010
8	October 2010
18	September 2010
5	August 2010
9	July 2010
57	June 2010
9	May 2010
5	April 2010
100	March 2010
2	February 2010
3	January 2010
34	December 2009
4	November 2009
9	October 2009
31	September 2009
106	August 2009
17	July 2009
11	June 2009
12	May 2009
3	April 2009
15	March 2009
74	February 2009
22	January 2009
18	December 2008
16	November 2008
28	October 2008
31	September 2008
35	August 2008
23	July 2008
35	June 2008
9	May 2008
35	April 2008
16	March 2008
30	February 2008
30	January 2008
13	December 2007
8	November 2007
30	October 2007
17	September 2007
53	August 2007
12	July 2007
53	June 2007
12	May 2007
80	April 2007
53	March 2007
56	February 2007
23	January 2007
16	December 2006
80	November 2006
60	October 2006
38	August 2006
23	July 2006
46	June 2006
1	May 2006
4	April 2006
7	March 2006
2	February 2006

www.ietf.org

www.ietf.org

Re: Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method

Drafts minutes from IETF 80

Re: Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method

Re: Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method

Re: Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method

Re: Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method

Re: Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method

Re: Consensus call on EAP Tunneled method