On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Russ Housley <hous...@vigilsec.com> wrote: > I'd like to hear from the community about pushing forward with this > proposal or dropping it. > > At least one other proposal was raised. My reading of this mail list is > that the proposal in draft-housley-two-maturity-levels has more support.
I'm assuming that the "other proposal" you mean is draft-hardie-advance-mechanics; if I missed a different one, please correct that mistake on my part. First, I'm not sure that the two actually compete, except in that the community might be unwilling to make two changes at once; mine was written with explicit statement that it could be implemented with either a two or three step process. Second, I agree that draft-hardie-advance-mechanics does not have enough support to go forward at this time. There was some discussion of it, and I likely should produce a new draft. I did not do so for this round because I did not sense anything like enough support for it to indicate that the community had enough interest and energy to discuss thoroughly the change in working style (despite my personal belief that it largely followed the current work style on the ground). > Since the -00 cut-off for IETF 79 has passed, I am assuming that no > other proposals are going to be raised. > > Should I be seeking a sponsor for this draft? > The document currently has an open issue (in Section 8). Does this need to be resolved prior to seeking a sponsor? regards, Ted > Russ > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
