Re: [Uta] draft adoption - draft-sheffer and xmpp

On 2014-02-03 13:31, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> I would like to propose that the WG chairs just declare
> that the WG have adopted at least draft-sheffer-tls-bcp [1]
> and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saintandre-xmpp-tls. [2]
The authors of these drafts were going to meet last week to discuss a
possible merger/split of the drafts into possibly 2 or 3 new drafts
forming a more consistent overall structure.

The chairs are waiting to hear back from Yaron and St Peter.

In the meanwhile could I ask you (and anyone else for that matter) to
please review the drafts on the list so we can at least have _some_
discussion before we turn anything into WG documents!

The reason me and Orit are being a bit difficult is that this WG was
created wo a BOF process which means we don't have any initial consensus
around what the initial contributions are to lean on.

We (the chairs) feel this makes it even more important to be extra
careful about how this WG gets going and that this maybe is worth a
little extra startup delay.

Having said that, the WG has the final decision so feel free to disagree
and we'll adopt away :-)
>
> There may be others that are equally obvious but at least
> those two should be non controversial. Since Feb 14 is the
> cutoff for drafts before London that ought be done by now
> really IMO.
>
> Protocols do involve state machines but that doesn't
> imply working in a stately manner:-)
>
> S.
>
> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sheffer-tls-bcp-01
> [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saintandre-xmpp-tls
> _______________________________________________
> Uta mailing list
> Uta@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta