On Tuesday 17 October 2006 16:47, Stephen Farrell wrote: > This is something that I think we never decided, but now that > we're nearing closure for the open issues on the document we > should figure out its future. > > Should the ssp-reqs draft: > > (a) become an RFC of its own, as soon as we can do that, or, > (b) be incorporated into the eventual SSP protocol RFC or, > (c) just be allowed expire once we're done with it, or, > (d) finish it but only send it to the AD at the same time as > the SSP protocol draft? > Or, perhaps even, (e), something else? > > The only reason to not choose (a) is probably that its a bit more > work and I guess means an additional IETF last call which could > mean additional delay, so I'd be marginally in favour of (d) I > think.
OTOH, if we get the requirements thorugh an IETF last call, then I'd expect that to ease the passage of the eventual SSP RFC through last call so it might be a net gain in time/work to the final product. Scott K _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
