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

Re: discussion of SIGMA-IKE



On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Barbara Fraser wrote:

> 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.
> 
Obviously I agree, and now I also stand corrected as to procedure ;)

jan


> 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
> 

 --
Jan Vilhuber                                            vilhuber@cisco.com
Cisco Systems, San Jose                                     (408) 527-0847



References: