+1.
On 3/28/11 3:52 PM, Michelle Cotton wrote:
> +1
>
> Michelle
>
>
> On 3/28/11 5:46 AM, "Lars Eggert" <lars.egg...@nokia.com> 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
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
