On Tuesday 17 October 2006 16:47, Stephen Farrell wrote:
This is something that I think we never decided, but now that
we're nearing closure for the open issues on the document we
should figure out its future.
Should the ssp-reqs draft:
(a) become an RFC of its own, as soon as we can do that, or,
(b) be incorporated into the eventual SSP protocol RFC or,
(c) just be allowed expire once we're done with it, or,
(d) finish it but only send it to the AD at the same time as
the SSP protocol draft?
Or, perhaps even, (e), something else?
The only reason to not choose (a) is probably that its a bit more
work and I guess means an additional IETF last call which could
mean additional delay, so I'd be marginally in favour of (d) I
think.
OTOH, if we get the requirements thorugh an IETF last call, then I'd expect
that to ease the passage of the eventual SSP RFC through last call so it
might be a net gain in time/work to the final product.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html