Re: "Discuss" criteria

[Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz at cmu.edu>]

On Tuesday, January 02, 2007 12:21:37 AM +0100 Harald Alvestrand 
<harald at alvestrand.no> wrote:

> John Leslie wrote:
> >    This is venturing into dangerous territory. The best expertise on
> > the technical issues involved _should_ be in the WG that produced the
> > document. Expecting to find _better_ expertise within the IESG seems
> > less than rational...
> Expecting the best available expertise on charset issues and string
> matching in the Kerberos WG is, in my opinion, less than rational.

As chair of the WG in question, I have to agree.  Though we do have a 
couple of individuals who seem to have developed more expertise in that 
area than is healthy. :-)

> But the Kerberos WG still has to define protocol operations where strings
> are compared.
> Sometimes a WG needs help with issues outside their core purview, and
> sometimes they won't discover that until their documents hit the IESG.
> That's life.
>
> (apologies to the Kerberos folks, who, I think, are now very much
> educated on those specific issues, for using them as an example....)

None needed; I think you illustrated the point perfectly.

-- Jeff

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf