Re: draft-williams-on-channel-binding: IANA rules too complicated

To: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf at mit.edu>
Subject: Re: draft-williams-on-channel-binding: IANA rules too complicated
From: Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams at sun.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 15:58:13 -0500
Cc: alexey.melnikov at isode.com, ietf at ietf.org
In-reply-to: <tsly7huybxx.fsf@mit.edu>
List-help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <tsly7huybxx.fsf@mit.edu>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.7i

Personally I'm in favor of whatever registration rules the IESG thinks
would be best.  I'd like specs to be published, of course, and I'd like
expert review, but I don't want us to depart from standard registration
review rules if that is at all controversial.

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

References:
- draft-williams-on-channel-binding: IANA rules too complicated
  - From: Sam Hartman

Prev by Date: Re: A new transition plan, was: Re: the evilness of NAT-PT, was: chicago IETF IPv6 connectivity
Next by Date: Re: A new transition plan, was: Re: the evilness of NAT-PT, was: chicago IETF IPv6 connectivity
Previous by thread: Re: draft-williams-on-channel-binding: IANA rules too complicated
Next by thread: Re: the evilness of NAT-PT, was: chicago IETF IPv6 connectivity
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Re: draft-williams-on-channel-binding: IANA rules too complicated

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.