I agree that doing it as a new I-D is better than trying to fit it in without sufficient thought.
John B. On 2013-02-08, at 8:01 PM, Brian Campbell <[email protected]> wrote: > Maybe this was apparent from my comments/questions on the SPI proposal over > the last couple days[1] but I have concerns that run the gamut from > operational complexity and fragility to security problems. I believe strongly > that, without considerably more analysis and specification detail, the > current SPI work is much too risky to consider go in the current base JOSE WG > drafts. > > As an alternative I'd like to request/propose that the SPI stuff be submitted > as new I-D to help facilitate that additional discussion and analysis that I > think it needs. > > Thanks, > Brian > > [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/jose/current/msg01500.html > _______________________________________________ > jose mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
