Re: Request for review and consensus -- draft-hartman-webauth-phishing
Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> Tue, 09 September 2008 12:48 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3957328C1AB; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 05:48:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D97128C1A8 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 05:48:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.238
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.238 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.027, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6JbzMavt2hLW for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 05:48:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org [69.25.196.178]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B25128C1AB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 05:48:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id BDE1C4116; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 08:48:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
To: Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org>
Subject: Re: Request for review and consensus -- draft-hartman-webauth-phishing
References: <47490048-25ED-403E-96B9-0D385F764292@osafoundation.org> <87k5dnyprr.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org>
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 08:48:48 -0400
In-Reply-To: <87k5dnyprr.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org> (Simon Josefsson's message of "Mon, 08 Sep 2008 11:02:00 +0200")
Message-ID: <tsld4jdtrgv.fsf@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: ietf-http-auth@osafoundation.org, Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.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@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Re: Request for review and consensus -- draft-har… Simon Josefsson
- Re: Request for review and consensus -- draft-har… Sam Hartman