Agreed, thanks to Paul for the proposed text. On 2/15/11 9:02 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote: > > Paul's text is much better than mine. That was what I trying to get > at. > > On Feb 15, 2011, at 8:59 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > >> On 2/15/11 7:34 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote: >>> I propose some text for the draft near the bottom of this >>> email.... For the user ports the document should have some text >>> along the lines of: >>> >>> There is not IETF consensus on when it is appropriate to use a >>> second port for a secure version of protocol therefor the export >>> reviewer should not reject a request for a second port to run a >>> secure variant of the protocol over. >> >> That feels close, but too prescriptive. Also, the requests are >> usually for a protocol with two ports, not a later request for a >> second port. How about: >> >> There is not IETF consensus on when it is appropriate to use a >> second port for a secure version of protocol. Therefore, an expert >> reviewer should not reject a proposal for a protocol that uses a >> second part to run a secure variant for the sole reason that it >> using two ports.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
