On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 14:52:39 +0200, Eliot Lear
<lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> said:
If you really believe that this solution is needed, I think you would do
best to write a draft and _then_ try to get it adopted by an appropriate
WG.
Eliot> I (amongst others) *did*. draft-kaushik-isms-btsm-01.txt.
Eliot> What had been missing up until this point was an SSH draft.
Eliot> And the working group developed consensus on this non-existent
Eliot> draft. You've got to be impressed.
Elliot, sorry to hear that you wrote a draft that the WG didn't want.
It happens. In fact, it happened to me in this WG, no less. In fact,
if you want to play the game of "I had a draft written first and thus
I should win", then I think mine would trump yours ;-)
Wouldn't the best thing to do be to help the SSH draft authors ensure
your needs are met rather than complain about your draft not being the
choice the WG went with? Just because CH functionality isn't in the
charter doesn't mean you can't analyze the resulting SSH draft for
problems with (future or now) CH functionality. That would mean
either CH would be possible now or it would leave room for an easy
addition for support for it in the future. Obviously, the WG has
chosen not to make it their top priority but I doubt anyone would
complain about leaving room for it unless the suggestions dramatically
affected the agreed upon architecture or solution.
--
Wes Hardaker
Sparta, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf