Re: [tcpm] another review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure[-10]

On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 10:30:30PM -0700, Joe Touch wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 
> 
> Chandrashekhar Appanna wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 02:33:29PM -0500, David Borman wrote:
> >> Ok, Wes and I count four opinions against and two opinions for having  
> >> "Updates: 793" in the header of tcpsecure.  Unless other folks chime  
> >> in, the resolution we see is:
> >>
> >> 1) "Updates: 793" is not put in the header of tcpsecure
> >> 2) When we send tcpsecure up to the IESG, we will note this issue and  
> >> the discussion, and if the IESG feels that is appropriate to have  
> >> "Updates: 793" in the header, then it can be added in.
> >>
> > 
> >   My opinion is that since we believe these are 'good changes' and would
> >   expect newer code to follow these recomendataions, 'Updates' would be
> >   appropriate. 
> 
> That's exactly what I don't expect. I expect these mods to be deployed
> ONLY where necessary, not in all newer code, FWIW. The idea that this is
> generally useful is the kind of misperception I would like to avoid...
>
  Joe :)

  While I do notice that you embody 'TCPM', and the chairs are just
  window dressing I would prefer that you
  let us provide out opinions and not jump in to mischaracterize my
  words to your ends ;)

  I __did not__ say anthying to imply generally useful. But to _me_
  code is key.. it may be that you are more interested in a purely
  academic angle which does not affect the 'working internet'.. now
  I am putting words in your mouth.. are'nt I?

  Regards,
  Chandra.

> Joe
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> 
> iEYEARECAAYFAkjlrfUACgkQE5f5cImnZrtMsQCfYjyH2vnVgEteELEXV1G+w70Q
> seAAoIc23DQmZ8h88NRqdxmuWnD58vfa
> =DUXb
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm