[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Captive-portals] IESG comments on charter-ietf-capport-00-03



I agree with all of Martin's proposed statements. Regarding the last comment (Joel's), the word "secure" in the draft charter applies to multiple mechanisms, some of which we may not be able to secure, and some that are possible to secure. So I'm fine with the text as it stands, even if securing everything may not be realistic.
Thanks,
	Yaron

On 11/21/2015 01:11 AM, Martin Thomson wrote:
How does this sound?

Alissa: editorial, just fix it
Spencer: maybe pass
Jari: important, just fix it
Benoit: maybe related, but we can let the WG decide
Joel: is right, but I don't know what to do about that.  I'd rather
have the goal and miss it due to ... physics ... than to not have it
at all.  I think that the notion that *secure* detection is possible
is a Hard problem.

On 20 November 2015 at 09:09, Barry Leiba <[email protected]> wrote:
capport denizens,

After yesterday's IESG telechat, the capport charter was approved
*pending edits*, and I'm holding it as I wait for responses to the
assorted comments in this final round of review.

See the comments here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-capport/ballot/

Please review the comments ASAP, decide what edits, if any, are needed
to address the comments, and post a collective response to the IESG
list (one message responding to all the comments is fine).  I'll check
that, make the edits in the datatracker, and we can finalize the
approval of the charter.

Thanks,
Barry
_______________________________________________
Captive-portals mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals