Re: Request for review and consensus -- draft-hartman-webauth-phishing

From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf at mit.edu>
To: Simon Josefsson <simon at josefsson.org>
Cc: ietf-http-auth at osafoundation.org, Lisa Dusseault <lisa at osafoundation.org>, ietf at ietf.org
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 08:48:48 -0400
In-reply-to: <87k5dnyprr.fsf at mocca.josefsson.org> (Simon Josefsson's message of "Mon, 08 Sep 2008 11:02:00 +0200")
References: <47490048-25ED-403E-96B9-0D385F764292 at osafoundation.org> <87k5dnyprr.fsf at mocca.josefsson.org>

Simon, can I get you to analyze what position the IETF should take on
these issues--what form of consensus we're looking for.

For my part, it doesn't make sense to pursue this within the IETF
context--responding to feedback, trying to get a draft that everyone
is happy with--if the IETF is going to take no position.

I agree we need to have a discussion about status.  But first, I'd
like to separate the discussion of what we're getting the IETF to
agree on.

Would you support the IETF making the statement is section 1.1?  If
not, what would you support, or what changes could we make to get to a
point where you would support the statement in section 1.1.

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

References:
- Re: Request for review and consensus -- draft-hartman-webauth-phishing
  - From: Simon Josefsson

Prev by Date: Re: Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
Next by Date: Re: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-forces-mib-07
Previous by thread: Re: Request for review and consensus -- draft-hartman-webauth-phishing
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: Request for review and consensus -- draft-hartman-webauth-phishing

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