Hi, I support the proposal.
We will need to have a similar decision about the attestation draft, though I think we the WG can wait till we the authors provide the next version and make a concrete recommendation to be discussed… Be goode, On 2 Nov 2016, at 19:42 , Adrian Farrel <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi, We have a charter action and milestone to decide whether to publish our work as RFCs or not. The milestone reads: WG decides whether to progress adopted drafts for publication as RFCs (use cases, framework, information model, and examination of existing secure communication mechanisms) We had some (light) conversations on the list and arrived at the following position, I think. This is your chance to scream if you disagree - otherwise, this is the email of record documenting our plan. use cases draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases Pursue publication framework draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework Pursue publication information model Not yet clear, but some feeling that we should publish. Pending adoption and more work. gap analysis for protocols draft-ietf-i2nsf-gap-analysis Do not publish Keep draft alive for as long as it is useful, then archive requirements for protocol extensions Covered as part of draft-ietf-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-req-00 Pursue publication examination of existing secure communication mechanisms Aim to add this to draft-ietf-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-req-00 Pursue publication terminology draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology Pursue publication Cheers, Adrian _______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf -- "Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno" Dr Diego R. Lopez Telefonica I+D http://people.tid.es/diego.lopez/ e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +34 913 129 041 Mobile: +34 682 051 091 ----------------------------------
_______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
