+1 Michelle
On 3/28/11 5:46 AM, "Lars Eggert" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
