Subject: Re: [websec] request for feedback on adoption of drafts to WG - until Dec-16

From: Maduka Attamah <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 23:09:51 +0100

> - draft-abarth-origin:
- hodges-strict-transport-sec:
- draft-abarth-mime-sniff:

A: Yes for all three

- not biased ;-)

--
Maduka
http://ui.edu.ng/mattamah

---

From: Devdatta Akhawe <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 14:15:06 -0800

What does "Adopt" mean ? They will still be drafts, right?

On 11 December 2010 14:09, Maduka Attamah <[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> websec mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec
>
>

---

From: Tobias Gondrom <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 22:56:23 +0000

Yes. They will still be drafts.
(they are now individual drafts and after adoption will be wg drafts)
Tobias

---

From: Devdatta Akhawe <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 14:56:34 -0800

yes on all three

---

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 00:00:26 +0100

>What does "Adopt" mean ? They will still be drafts, right?

The drafts would become work items of the working group, further work in
an area covered by one of the drafts would likely be based on them, in
one way or the other. This would be a good time to argue, for instance,
that a draft falls out of the scope of the Working Group, does not meet
and is unlikely to meet requirements layed out in the charter, that the
technical approach in a draft is fundamentally unsound; or make counter-
proposals for what other existing work should be adopted to cover what
is covered by one or more of the drafts. More simply put, it's a matter
of "Yes, it makes sense to base the group's work in this area on them".
They would still be drafts of course.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email-masked] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/