Hi Med,
On 05/06/14 14:11, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
Hi Stephen,
You referred in your message to an old version.
That was the one for which the adoption call was issued. I
guess just a typo.
I looked quickly at the diff between 04 and 05 and my
conclusion remains the same and
Dear all,
FWIW, the latest version is
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios-05.
There is a section about privacy that basically refers to
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6967#section-3.
Identifying other privacy-related concerns that are not discussed in
Re-,
I have two comments:
(1)
If one missed the following sentences in -04 Below is listed as set of
requirements to be used to characterize
each use case (discussed in Section 3): and Once this list is stabilized,
each use case will be checked against
these requirements., then the
Brian, in my experience working group adoption is more than the working
group agreeing to work on the topic. It is generally the working group
agreeing that the given document is a good basis for starting the work.
Yes, there will almost always be need for improvement. Sometimes
major
On Jun 5, 2014, at 4:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
I have to call you on that. WG adoption is not approval. It's agreement
to work on a topic. It is not OK to attempt a pocket veto on adoption
because you don't like the existing content.
WG adoption is a pretty
Ted said:
If there are problems with the document, part of the adoption process should
be the identification of those flaws and an agreement to address them. So
bringing up those flaws during the adoption process is crucial to the process.
[BA] I would agree that there should be an agreement
