[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Captive-portals] IESG comments on charter-ietf-capport-00-03
Let¹s move on from charter and roll our sleeves up on the real (harder)
On 11/20/15, 6:33 PM, "Captive-portals on behalf of Yaron Sheffer"
<[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]>
>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.
>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]>
>>> 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:
>>> 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.
>> Captive-portals mailing list
>> [email protected]
>Captive-portals mailing list