As one of the authors/editors, I am fine with this change. Thanks!
On 2011-3-28, at 14:14, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> 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.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
