Jeff and Paul,
Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
The announcement of the new thinking was made at the plenary session at the
last IETF meeting (the one in Munich). Many people on this mailing list
were there. Some even cheered when the announcement was made. :-)
( To be honest, I probably would have cheered and voted such too. Only
on reflection of the market (which tends to ignore programmers views)
did I question this. )
It
would raise many questions, and given the circumstances of the
competition for mail standards, these are questions that we'd rather the
other standards proponents could not raise.
I'm not sure what you mean here.
To clarify, I suspect that RSADSI are not above challenging the results
of this forum in court if they thought they could show it was
non-rigourous.
( I think I know what the answer to this might be: there is no
supporting material and it should be taken up with the Area Director.
OK, I'll start drafting a note. Not knowing the guy and how familiar he
is with the situation, this'll keep me quite for a few days. :-)
He's quite familiar with the situation, and he's also on this mailing list.
OK, I'll ask directly, and we'll put this to bed.
Jeff, do you accept Ned Freed's post of today to Open PGP under "Re:
IETF process" as accurately describing the "Munich doctrine" and its
effect on this WG?
--
iang systemics.com
FP: 1189 4417 F202 5DBD 5DF3 4FCD 3685 FDDE on pgp.com