the concerns that Marc Linsner raised, especially when these extensions are
used by an endpoint. When used by a third party ("On Behalf Of"), I think
the document has a lot more maturity.
I think the latter issues are more pressing, so an expedient would be to
progress the OBO aspects first.
In either case, the document needs more text on how trust relationships are
established.
Brian
On 9/15/09 11:58 AM, "Alissa Cooper" <acooper@cdt.org> wrote:
> All,
>
> In an effort to generate discussion and progress a bit more
> efficiently in the WG, Richard and I would like to experiment with
> something we're calling "working group second-to-last call" (WG2LC).
> We think the existing structures that set deadlines for comment (WGLC,
> IETF LC, etc.) are rather effective at motivating people to take a
> look at documents of interest, so we'd like to extend that concept a
> bit further. WG2LC is what it sounds like: an informal call for
> comments with a deadline, preceding the issuance of an official WGLC.
> The idea is to air some discussion about a document before it reaches
> the point of being ready for WGLC.
>
> As a first experiment for WG2LC, consider this a working group second-
> to-last call for comments on
>
> draft-ietf-geopriv-held-identity-extensions-00.txt
>
> Please send your comments about this document to the list by 23
> September 2009.
>
> Alissa
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
