I also support the adoption of this document.
Robert
Sandra Murphy wrote:
There were objections yesterday in the sidr meeting to the way that
draft-ietf-sidr-ta-00.txt became a wg draft.
draft-ietf-sidr-ta-00.txt was an extract of an important topic (trust
anchors) from the res certs profile document. As this was work that had
already been a working group work item, I suggested that it should be
submitted as a wg draft, rather than an individual draft.
That decision meant that the wg missed an opportunity to explicitly
accept this draft as a working group item.
Those who objected said that they thought the missing process step was
needed.
So I am requesting that the working group members state whether or not
they accept draft draft-ietf-sidr-ta-00.txt as a working group draft.
Please reply (yes or no, both are important) to the list by Thurs 2
April 2009.
(The deadline is Thursday rather than Wednesday because (a) it is late
and (b) that would make the deadline 1 April 2009, which would send the
wrong message.)
--Sandy
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
