Thanks Ted for clarifying. On 25 Sep 2014, at 14:49, Gonzalo Camarillo <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for your note, Ted. > > Group, approving this draft now and starting a new "tris" draft right > away does not really make sense. Shall we give Tom a couple of weeks to > put together a revision of the draft and then go through a new IETF LC > and IESG evaluation? > > As Ted said, this new process would be easier since the diff would not > be that large.
Should we first agree that we indeed want to separate the HIT suite ID from the OGA ID and that a simple clarification of how a HIT suite ID maps to an OGA ID does not suffice? The latter would probably be a minor edit that could still be fixed without starting a new evaluation round. > On 25/09/2014 1:35 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: >> On Sep 25, 2014, at 8:24 AM, Rene Hummen <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> just wondering if the decision was made for us, as RFC5201-bis was approved >>> yesterday: >> >> The kind of deliberation that you are doing post-IESG-approval on a draft >> really isn't appropriate. If there is an error in the draft, you should >> certainly tell me you need to fix it. But if you are having a policy >> debate about something that wasn't resolved prior to the end of working >> group last call and IETF last call, I'm afraid it really belongs in a -bis >> document. And that's what this discussion looks like to me. >> >> That said, the reason I approved the document yesterday was because when I >> went hunting through my email for comments relating to the review of the >> document, I didn't find any, because this discussion hasn't been referring >> to the document. If there is some *appropriate* fix that needs to be made >> to the document, I can pull it out of the RFC editor queue or we can address >> it during AUTH48. But the sort of changes that would be appropriate in >> that context are quite restricted. >> >> In order to make substantive changes that represent a new working group >> consensus, we would have to do a new last call and re-review it in the IESG. >> I expect that could be done quite expeditiously if the working group >> decided it was necessary, but you need to tell me now if that's what you >> want. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Hipsec mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec >> >> > -- Dipl.-Inform. Rene Hummen, Ph.D. Student Chair of Communication and Distributed Systems RWTH Aachen University, Germany tel: +49 241 80 21426 web: http://www.comsys.rwth-aachen.de/team/rene-hummen/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
