On 1/4/12 12:38 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: > On 01/04/2012 03:42 AM, Mark Mcgloin wrote: >> Hi Michael >> >> Can you clearly word the threat for which this countermeasure (or lack >> of) >> applies > > I've already done that in my original last call comments. Given that you > rejected my comments out of hand, it doesn't appear that it was for > lack of clarity. > > Mike, rather put off by the attitude of the editors in this wg
Mike: In my experience, the IETF tradition is not to passively complain, but to actively contribute. Thus if I don't like the fact that there's no specification for some feature or protocol I care about, it's my responsibility to write an Internet-Draft to fill that gap. Similarly, if I have concerns about someone else's Internet-Draft, it's incumbent on me to propose new or alternative text. Sure, I could wait for the authors, editors, working group chairs, or area directors to take action, but you will have much greater success if you actively contribute. Just my gram of silver... Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre http://stpeter.im/ _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
