Subject: Re: tcp expansion is still stuck

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 12:16:34 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 2 May 2007, Simon Josefsson wrote:

> Sam Hartman <[email-masked]> writes:
>
> > Simon, I've heard no more on this.  It sounds like no one is objecting
> > to IESG approval with the criteria you liked.

I saw no objections to IESG approval.  I indicated a preference for
standards action early in the discussion, but changed my mind fairly
quickly.

I think there is consensus in the group for criteria that would allow
something like draft-josefsson-kerberos5-starttls to get a number, even if
it was not standards track or not a WG product.

Sam proposed two alternatives, one of which Simon has incorporated
verbatim into the document.  I have seen no responses at all to Sam's
message, and I agree we can probably assume that means no one cares
overmuch about that level of detail.

My only concern is that the text doesn't seem to give the IESG any real
guidance on how to determine whether a particular extension is justified.
However, the IESG is supposed to be experienced in making such decisions,
so if they are satisified with the level of guidance given, then I have no
objections either.

Simon, you should go ahead and submit the new draft.

-- Jeff

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 12:32:51 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 2 May 2007, Simon Josefsson wrote:

> http://josefsson.org/krb5starttls/draft-ietf-krb-wg-tcp-expansion-from--01.diff.html
> http://josefsson.org/krb5starttls/draft-ietf-krb-wg-tcp-expansion.txt

Oh; two nits on this:

s/stewart/steward/
s/namspace/namespace/

-- Jeff