Re: Java Bindings do not need to be removed was Re: Proposed PRF changes to address Ken's comments

[Jeffrey Altman <jaltman at columbia.edu>]

Seema Malkani wrote:

>>My hope is that Sun will find a way of working within the IETF process
>>to standardize Java GSS extensions.  However we need Sun's input on
>>this issue rather soon in order to know what to do with the current
>>draft.

There is nothing wrong with Sun and the Java Community using the JCP as
a means of obtaining additional review as part of the process of
submitting comments to this working group on its drafts.   Where there
is a potential conflict is if the working group comes to consensus on
decisions and after that consensus is reached the JCP produces
a conflicting decision.

>From my perspective as a working group chair, if the JCP is going to be
used, the participants in the JCP really should be active participants
in this forum.  Otherwise, there is tremendous potential for conflict.
It is acceptable for the JCP to rubberstamp the work of the IETF, it is
not acceptable for the IETF to rubberstamp the work of the JCP.

Jeffrey Altman

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

_______________________________________________
Kitten mailing list
Kitten at lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten