Re: Review of draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05

[Eric Rescorla <ekr at networkresonance.com>]

At Tue, 21 Aug 2007 20:34:30 -0400,
Sam Hartman wrote:
> 
> >>>>> "Paul" == Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org> writes:
> 
>     >> I do hope that we have consensus these are good requirements,
> 
>     Paul> We absolutely do not have any such consensus. There was
>     Paul> barely any discussion during IETF Last Call. There was not a
>     Paul> mailing list for discussing the draft. 
> 
> Hmm.  I actually think that as ad-sponsored informationals go this got
> a lot of constructive discussion in ietf last call.

Uh, where? I just looked through the IETF mailing list and the only
such discussion I see after the 5/23 IETF LC was (1) between you 
and Eliot and (2) the present discussion. I wouldn't exactly
characterize the present discussion as supporting a claim of
consensus.

> It was discussed on the dix and http-auth lists and at the WAE BOF.
> My perception of the room at WAE was that with the exception of the
> requirement about mutual authentication this was relatively
> non-controversial and that going forward with such a document would
> be useful.

I was not aware the BOFs were a standard venue for assessing
consensus for document advancement.

-Ekr

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