>> Another thought occurred to me, from what Pete has said: >> >> Pete's question is, "Why NOT use HMAC?" >> >> That's the wrong question; it's the IESG overstepping its authority, >> if they insist that that's the question. The IESG is objecting to >> what the working group has come up with... > > You will note that I quite carefully and explicitly split my questions about > the WG's intent from the IESG's DISCUSS questions. The question of "Why NOT > use HMAC?" was mine. The IESG did not ask that question and in no way > overstepped its authority.
Ah, sorry. I will note that either you weren't careful and explicit enough or (more likely) I simply missed it. I was committing a bit of hyperbole here, and didn't really think the IESG was going over the edge... but I did think the "explain why you won't use HMAC, or else use HMAC" think was what was required to clear the DISCUSS position. As it turns out, what was really needed was for us to better explain what the redaction is trying to do, so it's clear why the specific encoding doesn't matter and needn't be specified here. And, of course, that *is* reasonable for the IESG to ask. That done, all is well. Please forgive me for being inappropriately inflammatory in my hyperbolicness. Probably I was a little grumpy at the time, as well. Barry, who will now get back to chairing quietly in his chair _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
