+1
Michelle
On 3/28/11 5:46 AM, "Lars Eggert" <lars.eggert@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> As one of the authors/editors, I am fine with this change. Thanks!
>
> On 2011-3-28, at 14:14, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>> After discussing this new text with IESG and some participants of the TSVWG,
>> it became clear that while there is clear agreement for adding the first
>> sentence quoted above ("There is no IETF consensus..."), there is no clear
>> cut consensus for adding the second sentence ("Therefore, an expert reviewer
>> should not reject a proposal").
>>
>> After even further discussions with proponents of this text, with editors,
>> IANA, etc., the proposal is to strike the second sentence, i.e. only the
>> following sentence is going to be added to the document:
>>
>> There is no IETF consensus on when it is appropriate to use a second port for
>> an insecure version of protocol.
>>
>> The IESG is already alerted when there are problems with IANA registrations,
>> so the requirement being removed is not needed.
>>
>> If people have problems with this change, please send your objections by 4pm
>> Prague time on Wednesday, March 30th, as I would like to approve the document
>> before my IESG term ends.
>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf