[Top] [All Lists]

RE: RE: RE: Cross review of draft ERS from LTANS WG - RE: WG Las t Ca ll:draft-ietf-ltans-ers-09.txt- untilJan 23rd

2007-01-11 08:51:19
My response wasn't a reversal of the question but a request for details.
Folks on the list have previously discussed these specifications, including
their use within an EvidenceRecord.  You made a sweeping comment that lacked
any details and called for fairly drastic measures.  I simply asked for


From: Denis Pinkas [mailto:denis(_dot_)pinkas(_at_)bull(_dot_)net] 
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 9:46 AM
To: Carl Wallace; ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Cc: ietf-ltans(_at_)imc(_dot_)org; Russ Housley; Tobias Gondrom
Subject: Re: RE: RE: Cross review of draft ERS from LTANS WG - RE: WG Last
Ca ll:draft-ietf-ltans-ers-09.txt- untilJan 23rd

Please do not reverse the question. ISO 18014-3 already exists. The WG has
to justify why it would not fulfill its needs.
I will refine my question: Why is a profile of ISO 18014-3 not adequate to
fulfill the needs ?
A profile would make sense, since ISO 18014-3 has many options.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>