Doh. Messages passed in the ether. W
On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 2:48 AM, Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote: > Whoops, Sara is right and I was wrong. What the WG agreed to was in the > slides in Yokohama: > > ===== > Explicitly state that an upcoming document will define further > authentication profiles > Draft in development, will be submitted ASAP > > This draft will document Opportunistic and briefly cite the risk-benefit for > it > > This draft will provide a brief sketch of authentication in the case where > there is a two-way active relationship between the client and the server > (e.g. enterprise) > ===== > > Unlike what I said a bit ago, we obviously can't pull out the current > security requirements and point to a future document: that will never fly > with the IESG (and nor should it). > > --Paul Hoffman > > > _______________________________________________ > dns-privacy mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
