On Jun 2, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Joe Touch <touch(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu> wrote:
On 6/2/2015 11:02 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Jun 2, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Joe Touch <touch(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu> wrote:
Leaving out the have-nots - or those whose access is blocked by others
when content cannot be scanned - isn't moving forward.
That would certainly be a problem if the consensus were not to
provide both a secure and an, as you call it, "open" version of all IETF
documents.
The IETF is more than just the documents.
All IETF content should be accessible via non-secure means.
Yes, I agree, and as I said I think that's the consensus. What I mean by
"IETF documents" is what you mean by "IETF content," and I apologize for my
lack of clarity—I was not merely referring to RFCs and internet drafts.
That said, there's clearly some reason why you responded, I think to something
that I said, by raising the concern that some public IETF content might not be
accessible in this way. So probably the right thing to do is figure out if
you still think that someone is proposing a solution which would have that as
its result, and if so, explain why you think that, since it likely means that
some technical problem was overlooked either in what I said or what was said
previously.