Required doc sections (Re: [saag] Next step on web phishing draft(draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt))

Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com> Wed, 12 September 2007 16:50 UTC

Return-path: <discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IVVQP-0002gF-7k; Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:50:49 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IVD0A-0006aY-K3 for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:10:30 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IVD0A-0006YI-60 for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:10:30 -0400
Received: from sca-ea-mail-4.sun.com ([192.18.43.22]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IVD08-0007Nk-Nr for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:10:30 -0400
Received: from centralmail4brm.Central.Sun.COM ([129.147.62.198]) by sca-ea-mail-4.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id l8BLARxT015529 for <discuss@apps.ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:10:27 GMT
Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (binky.Central.Sun.COM [129.153.128.104]) by centralmail4brm.Central.Sun.COM (8.13.6+Sun/8.13.6/ENSMAIL, v2.2) with ESMTP id l8BLARmu024462 for <discuss@apps.ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Sep 2007 15:10:27 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.1+Sun/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l8BLANH6029217; Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:10:23 -0500 (CDT)
Received: (from nw141292@localhost) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.1+Sun/8.14.1/Submit) id l8BLALVa029216; Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:10:21 -0500 (CDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: binky.Central.Sun.COM: nw141292 set sender to Nicolas.Williams@sun.com using -f
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:10:21 -0500
From: Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com>
To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
Subject: Required doc sections (Re: [saag] Next step on web phishing draft(draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt))
Message-ID: <20070911211021.GP28329@Sun.COM>
References: <46E2E54A.2050406@isode.com> <8B056441-7E57-46D4-9A2C-5BF7DE0297BF@muada.com> <420921CE-C4A9-49A8-9626-2BEAB70D7107@multicasttech.com> <26C12754-DA05-4545-84E8-2ECE136C5A2D@muada.com> <20070909234839.GA2020@boreas.isi.edu> <003101c7f465$9b90c9a0$0b00a8c0@CPQ86763045110> <01ML8DYIHPJQ003GRV@mauve.mrochek.com> <46E6F657.4040204@cs.utk.edu> <01ML8GHD48YO00005F@mauve.mrochek.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <01ML8GHD48YO00005F@mauve.mrochek.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.7i
X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-)
X-Scan-Signature: 1ac7cc0a4cd376402b85bc1961a86ac2
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:50:47 -0400
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, discuss@apps.ietf.org, 'Iljitsch van Beijnum' <iljitsch@muada.com>, Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, bmanning@isi.edu, saag@mit.edu, Debbie Garside <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk>, ietf-http-auth@osafoundation.org
X-BeenThere: discuss@apps.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols <discuss.apps.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:discuss@apps.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org

This thread has morphed into something else entirely.  Please change the
subject and move it to an appropriate list (I've set Reply-To:
ietf@ietf.org; please respect it).

For the record, things like IANA considerations sections should be
required of I-Ds, even if to say that there aren' new language.)

Very good point. Having lots of slightly varying definitions of various terms
could be hugely harmful.

RFC 2119 is a case in point. While I have some small issues with how RFC 2119
defines its terms, I've come to realize that having consistent meanings for
these terms is far more important.

				Ned