[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Straw Poll and Photuris
> From: Craig Metz <cmetz@inner.net>
> However, I also think that it's very important the the spec document be as
> well done as possible, and I have not seen anything in the new straw poll
> consensus that is an unreasonable requirement for a specification to provide.
Indeed, neither have I.
Except that the straw poll statement goes beyond the actual results of
the 3 questions in the poll itself to indicate a "conclusion" not
indicated in any of the responses to the poll, and not germain to the
questions in the poll.
CONCLUSIONS:
(1) None of the proposals currently online appear to fully
meet all of the requirements, though it does appear that
all of them could be modified to meet all of the
requirements.
How can this "conclusion" be reached, when examination of the list
archives yields not a single response to the straw poll mentioning that
none of the proposals fully meets the requirements?
This conclusion does not in any way represent "consensus". It may be
the personal opinion of one or more chairs, but that is not within their
purview to impose upon the rest of us.
> I'd like to see the Photuris spec changed to meet these requirements so that
> it (and we) can move on to more important things like trying to implement.
>
It has been admitted that Photuris meets every single requirement listed
in RFC-1825 section 1.4 and section 2. What requirement do you mean?
Bill.Simpson@um.cc.umich.edu
Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2
Follow-Ups: