On 11/18/10 4:51 AM, RJ Atkinson wrote:
IESG Folks,
The IETF already has taken MUCH MUCH too long handling this document.
Each time this I-D gets revised, new and different issues are raised.
While I am generally OK with the way IETF processes work,
this document is an exception.
Excessiv
Hi Tom,
I'm guessing that you're really not subscribed, or that your filters are
not doing what you expect. The draft is being discussed on that list.
Regards,
Chris
On Fri, 19 Nov 2010, t.petch wrote:
I am somewhat surprised to see this I-D launched straight into IETF last call.
Its pred
I am somewhat surprised to see this I-D launched straight into IETF last call.
Its predecessor, albeit with a somewhat wider focus, reached -04 in 2006 and I
commented thereon on the ssh list. I see my comments have not been addressed in
the intervening four years, and think that this I-D would b
