Re: Two step, three step, one step, and alternatives

Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net> Fri, 12 November 2010 23:35 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
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 D0CF23A6A1A for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:35:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.574
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 Gg9INma82cou for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:35:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 841463A6A33 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:35:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.1.87.158] ([124.193.12.156]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oACNZXai006247 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:35:41 -0800
Message-ID: <4CDDCF41.9000302@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 07:35:29 +0800
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Subject: Re: Two step, three step, one step, and alternatives
References: <B7E5004532B85C156EFB0760@JcK-eee10.meeting.ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <B7E5004532B85C156EFB0760@JcK-eee10.meeting.ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:35:41 -0800 (PST)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
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>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 23:35:18 -0000

On 11/13/2010 7:01 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
> We've now got your/the IESG's two-step proposal, Dave's
> alternative, discussions about going directly to single step,


Single step???

That's not the alternative proposal that we put forward.  It is an alternative 
two step:

    <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-crocker-ietf-twostage-00>

It even makes that clear in the I-D filename.

It's primary distinction is different criteria for the second step.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net