On 07/Jul/11 16:17, Barry Leiba wrote: >> I'll follow up shortly with a summary of who has to change what. >> It would be great if we could all do so before the deadline on >> the 11th. > > To be clear: > As chair, I see the consensus on leaving the split as originally > planned. Alessandro has a good point, but I think WG consensus is > against going that way.
I respect the WG decision. However, I'd recommend that the discussion of the meaning of r, rf, and ri be factored in the authfailure-report anyway, as it's not yet final and updating it separately in four occurrences would be a nuisance. Currently, authfailure-report proposes an exponential growth of the interval, while the other two drafts account for three slightly different definitions of ri. In no case it is specified how a stateless verifier should behave. _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
