At 7:06 PM -0800 2/20/09, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Stephen Kent wrote:
At 9:00 PM -0800 2/19/09, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Just as a matter of observation, ...
...
I have not read the doc in
question,...
Hey guys. As someone who is frequently faced with trying to parse
out what are and are not the commonly held views among the security
community, I'm actually interested in this type of exchange.
But as you both note, this exchange isn't critical to resolution of
the the appeal.
For those of who want to see this appeal dispatched as quickly and
as painlessly as possible, is there a chance that you can continue
the exchange under a different guise, at a minimum under an entirely
independent thread?
d/
Dave,
My belief is that IF the doc conflates authentication and
authorization, then some intelligent editing probably can fix that
problem quickly. Since, as you and other have noted, the WG is n
board with this doc, the issue Phil raised, and to which I responded,
ought not affect approval of the document.
Steve
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf