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

Re: discussion of SIGMA-IKE



I agree. We try to get the drafts in before the deadline because it makes 
it easier for interested people to access it but it doesn't mean we 
don't/can't discuss those that don't make IDs in time. It's important for 
us to discuss the Sigma draft along with the IKE-v2 and JFK docs.

Barb

At 12:40 PM 12/7/2001, 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



Follow-Ups: References: