On 3/28/11 2:14 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>
>> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>> Agreed, I will add this as an RFC Editor's note.
>>
>>>> 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
>>>>> is using two ports.
>>>>
> After discussing this new text with IESG and some participants of the
> TSVWG, it became clear that while there is clear agreement for adding
> the first sentence quoted above ("There is no IETF consensus..."), there
> is no clear cut consensus for adding the second sentence ("Therefore, an
> expert reviewer should not reject a proposal").
>
> After even further discussions with proponents of this text, with
> editors, IANA, etc., the proposal is to strike the second sentence, i.e.
> only the following sentence is going to be added to the document:
>
> There is no IETF consensus on when it is appropriate to use a second
> port for an insecure version of protocol.
>
> The IESG is already alerted when there are problems with IANA
> registrations, so the requirement being removed is not needed.
>
> If people have problems with this change, please send your objections by
> 4pm Prague time on Wednesday, March 30th, as I would like to approve the
> document before my IESG term ends.As someone who was involved in formulating the two-sentence text and who raised concerns about removing the second sentence within the IESG, I'd like to publicly affirm that I find this resolution acceptable. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
