Paul's text is much better than mine. That was what I trying to get at.
On Feb 15, 2011, at 8:59 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On 2/15/11 7:34 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
I propose some text for the draft near the bottom of this email....
For the user ports the document should have some text along the lines
of:
There is not IETF consensus on when it is appropriate to use a second
port for a secure version of protocol therefor the export reviewer
should not reject a request for a second port to run a secure variant
of the protocol over.
That feels close, but too prescriptive. Also, the requests are usually for a
protocol with two ports, not a later request for a second port. How about:
There is not IETF consensus on when it is appropriate to use a second port
for a secure version of protocol. Therefore, an expert reviewer should not
reject a proposal for a protocol that uses a second part to run a secure
variant for the sole reason that it using two ports.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf