Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Agreed, thanks to Paul for the proposed text.
On 2/15/11 9:02 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
Paul's text is much better than mine. That was what I trying to get
at.
Agreed, I will add this as an RFC Editor's note.
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
is using two ports.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf