Subject: IESG Feedback on OCP Core draft

From: Markus Hofmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 10:29:19 -0400

Folks,

I believe attached message from Alex didn't make it to the mailing list.

Please have a careful look - it's about feedback from IESG discussion 
of our OCP Core draft.

Thanks,
   Markus

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 16:48:17 -0600 (MDT)
From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
To: OPES WG <[email-masked]>
Subject: ID Tracker State Update Notice: draft-ietf-opes-ocp-core

 >> 'State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG
 >> Evaluation by Amy Vezza'
 >> ID Tracker URL:
 >> 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=10380&rfc_flag=0

There are two "discuss" items:

1) It isn't clear how encryption is turned on.

    I will need to polish the text to make it clear. I think the draft
    lost some of the text that explicitly covered that when
    security negotiation was put out of Core scope.

2) Opening for future feature extension is too big.

    The comment that follows this vague statement seems to be
    misinterpreting how the extension mechanism works. I will
    polish the text and supply a specific example to make the
    intent clear. I hope that will remove the "too big"
    objection.

There was also a comment regarding lack of IANA registrations. I am
guessing that the IANA-related text we discussed on this list (and
with AD) after the draft was published did not make it to IESG. I will
include that text into the next version of the draft.

Please let me know if you have any other suggestions/ideas.

Thanks,

Alex.