IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Proposed WG: SSH, Secure Shell (SECSH)

Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no Fri, 14 February 1997 09:12 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa01206; 14 Feb 97 4:12 EST
Received: from ietf.org by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa19710; 14 Feb 97 4:12 EST
Received: from ietf.org by ietf.org id aa01196; 14 Feb 97 4:12 EST
Received: from aun.uninett.no by ietf.org id aa01191; 14 Feb 97 4:12 EST
Received: from dale.uninett.no (actually dale.htalvestrand.priv.no) by aun.uninett.no with SMTP (PP); Fri, 14 Feb 1997 10:09:53 +0100
Received: from dale.uninett.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dale.uninett.no (8.6.9/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA23548; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 10:06:34 +0100
Sender: iesg-request@ietf.org
From: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
To: jis@mit.edu
cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, The Internet Architecture Board <iab@ietf.org>, perry@piermont.com, ylo@ssh.fi
Subject: Re: Proposed WG: SSH, Secure Shell (SECSH)
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 14 Feb 1997 02:22:19 EST." <330412AB.F9A@mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <23544.855911193.1@dale.uninett.no>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 10:06:33 +0100
Message-ID: <23546.855911193@dale.uninett.no>
X-Orig-Sender: hta@dale.uninett.no

To me, this charter has one WG meeting after the group is finished.
Any reason why?
(The MHTML WG has this lingering too - but it's writing an "informational"
document, which is the excuse for the WG still existing, to document
issues that shouldn't be part of the standards doc. Do you intend
to do something similar?)
Apart from that, seems nice and clean to me.
Do you need to be explicit about change control going to IETF,
or do you regard that as an intrinsic property of "standardize"?

            Harald A

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email