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 Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf