Re: Comments requested on recent appeal to the IESG

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

 



At 7:06 PM -0800 2/20/09, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Stephen Kent wrote:
At 9:00 PM -0800 2/19/09, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Just as a matter of observation, ...
...
       I have not read the doc in
question,...


Hey guys. As someone who is frequently faced with trying to parse out what are and are not the commonly held views among the security community, I'm actually interested in this type of exchange.

But as you both note, this exchange isn't critical to resolution of the the appeal.

For those of who want to see this appeal dispatched as quickly and as painlessly as possible, is there a chance that you can continue the exchange under a different guise, at a minimum under an entirely independent thread?

d/

Dave,

My belief is that IF the doc conflates authentication and authorization, then some intelligent editing probably can fix that problem quickly. Since, as you and other have noted, the WG is n board with this doc, the issue Phil raised, and to which I responded, ought not affect approval of the document.

Steve
_______________________________________________

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

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