Hi,
My main positive comment is that it's a good idea to document guidelines
in this area, and that (viewed as guidelines) I largely agree with
the draft.
My main negative comment is that although the draft says it's not a
formal process document, its language in many places belies that.
For exam
nter [brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com]
Sent: 03 June 2013 00:27
To: IETF discussion list
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-crocker-id-adoption-02.txt
Hi,
My main positive comment is that it's a good idea to document guidelines
in this area, and that (viewed as guidelines) I largely agree with
the draft.
boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> l.w...@surrey.ac.uk
> Sent: 03 June 2013 02:52
> To: brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: I-D Action: draft-crocker-id-adoption-02.txt
>
> I'd argue that the draft also needs to discuss IRTF proce
On 6/3/2013 1:27 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
My main negative comment is that although the draft says it's not a
formal process document, its language in many places belies that.
For example:
...
I'd suggest a careful pass through the text, removing instances
of words like "process", "formal"
