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

Re: Consensus calls

To: atom-protocol Protocol <atom-protocol@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Consensus calls
From: James M Snell <jasnell@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 14:04:41 -0700
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=kqLqBVs4XXfC0n4RvbwRrMdcxI4MGV/OhTtbR4ptC41v5fSWdMJeziWoBCK92fOfljNqnik8Dw+R8BU64STUIr4qeGLZRne96FqOwp+WkpZITvRnOPF7ngts2hUh23OHfEhJ/yXIzR7MiE1SgLIur/ptEXXCjjGyEE38dDiowFA=
In-reply-to: <D973462A-DAC2-4B70-AD04-07EFE1B35A92@xxxxxxx>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/>
List-id: <atom-protocol.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:atom-protocol-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <D973462A-DAC2-4B70-AD04-07EFE1B35A92@xxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-atom-protocol@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060719)

I was going to hold off posting this, but there's really no sense in
doing so...

http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceSecurityConsiderationsRevised

- James

Tim Bray wrote:
> [snip]
> PaceSecurityConsiderations, PaceAuthenticationAndSecurity: There are
> enough positives and negatives on both that they will remain in play. 
> The chair has asked the two authors to make any changes they want by
> this Friday Sep 1st and the chairs will start a separate thread at that
> time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Consensus calls
  - From: Robert Sayre

References:
- Consensus calls
  - From: Tim Bray

Prev by Date: Re: Consensus calls
Next by Date: Re: Consensus calls
Previous by thread: Re: Consensus calls
Next by thread: Re: Consensus calls
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread