Paul's text is much better than mine. That was what I trying to get at. 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 using two ports. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
