Sam, > They are no more specific this year than they have been in the past. >
Ok -- I did not re-read the ones from past years. Just reacting on the current text. > The only change is that they were at least specific in a direction > that would actually compliment the sitting AD. > That's fine. > I personally have never liked the way the security AD requirements > were stated. > Hmm. Ok. Perhaps we should consider stating them in a better way then? Jari _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
