On Nov 9, 2011, at 1:42 PM, Stephen Kent wrote: >> >> The main reasons have to do with fundamental aspects which at a high >> level have been addressed by my colleagues, > > so, this is a Verisign critique, provided by you, Eric, and Danny?
Steve, Not that I need to justify or explain this to you or anyone else here... I agree it is quite interesting that we all arrived at similar conclusions with NO express coordination on this end - perhaps it's indicative of finally giving due consideration to what operationalizing and being held captive to such things entails - not simply 'running code, [standards], and run away', having to operationalize certainly impacts perspective. The purpose of last call is to encourage folks to review the documents, I'd have thought you would welcome such reviews, unless the goal is for "the authors" to simply prescribe to the working group and use SIDR as a publication medium for work done outside the IETF. Furthermore, given the barrage of documents that will eventually lead to operational requirements for some folks involved in these efforts, I'm very concerned they'll not get proper review. BTW: if you'd really like to evaluate contributions and funding sources in full let me know, I'm sure I can plot some dependency graphs for you ;-) I'll say no more on this topic here and stand by the technical merit of comments made -- if ANYONE would like more details on any of this find me in TPE. -danny
_______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
