Re: [Ietf-http-auth] Next step on web phishing draft (draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt)

[Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov at isode.com>]

Hi Bernard,

Bernard Aboba wrote:

> Alexey Melnikov said:
>
> "This statement taken in isolation is certainly correct. However if the 
> original LC didn't ask the right question, don't you think this makes 
> answers meaningless?"
>
> The reviews are not meaningless.
I didn't say that reviews were meaningless. They were indeed quite useful.

But as far as I can see, there were 2 separate groups of issues with the 
document: technical issues with document content and a question about 
whether the document represents any form of consensus (and its intended 
status). I was referring only to the second issue. The first group of 
issues obviously needs to be addressed first.

> They represent the feedback of the IETF 
> community.  Rather than asking a different question in hope of getting a 
> different answer, it would be better to address the feedback in an 
> attempt to achieve consensus (or at least a lower level of disagreement).
>  
I thought my original message was quite clear that further work on the 
document is needed. I guess it wasn't clear enough.
I also think it is pointless to ask the question about status of the 
document before technical issues are resolved.

> IMHO, it also might be appropriate to find a better forum and process 
> for  discussing and moving forward on this document.  The topic is 
> important, and one that the IETF has an opportunity to make a contribution 
> to, over time.  I think this may be a case where the existing BOF process 
> has limited our options.  For an alternative, see:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-aboba-sg-experiment-02.txt
>  
I will study your draft, thank you for the pointer.


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