[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: discussion of SIGMA-IKE
I certainly want the discussion to be as broad and with as many candidates as
possible. My point was that lots of folks don't seem to be able to get the
drafts to read them and take part in the discussion. As such we are loosing
at least some voices in the discussion. Not everyone's mail-archive or
web-searching skills are stellar ;)
As such, if the group as such feels it's not a problem, I certainly don't
want to exclude any proposals...
jan
On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> In message <2F3EC696EAEED311BB2D009027C3F4F4058698C0@vhqpostal.verisign.com>, "
> Hallam-Baker, Phillip" writes:
>
> >
> >I don't think anyone is suggesting that we should only discuss JFK because
> >it is the only draft submitted to the working group before the cutoff for a
> >single IETF meeting. Clearly we want the discussion at Salt Lake City to be
> >as productive as possible and that is best achieved by discussing all the
> >possible options.
>
> I certainly don't claim that. My understanding -- and my practice, in
> the groups I chair -- are that all drafts that are within charter and
> are the basis for WG disucssion are "official" WG documents, and can be
> named accordinglhy. It most emphatically does *not* imply any
> preferred status.
>
> --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb
> Full text of "Firewalls" book now at http://www.wilyhacker.com
>
>
--
Jan Vilhuber vilhuber@cisco.com
Cisco Systems, San Jose (408) 527-0847
References: