Re: [Ietf-http-auth] Next step on web phishing draft (draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Bernard,

Bernard Aboba wrote:

Alexey Melnikov said:

"This statement taken in isolation is certainly correct. However if the original LC didn't ask the right question, don't you think this makes answers meaningless?"

The reviews are not meaningless.

I didn't say that reviews were meaningless. They were indeed quite useful.

But as far as I can see, there were 2 separate groups of issues with the document: technical issues with document content and a question about whether the document represents any form of consensus (and its intended status). I was referring only to the second issue. The first group of issues obviously needs to be addressed first.

They represent the feedback of the IETF community. Rather than asking a different question in hope of getting a different answer, it would be better to address the feedback in an attempt to achieve consensus (or at least a lower level of disagreement).
I thought my original message was quite clear that further work on the document is needed. I guess it wasn't clear enough. I also think it is pointless to ask the question about status of the document before technical issues are resolved.

IMHO, it also might be appropriate to find a better forum and process for discussing and moving forward on this document. The topic is important, and one that the IETF has an opportunity to make a contribution to, over time. I think this may be a case where the existing BOF process has limited our options. For an alternative, see:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-aboba-sg-experiment-02.txt
I will study your draft, thank you for the pointer.


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]