Re: The SSL license offer.

[wayne <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In <Pine.LNX.4.44.0409021533250.15101-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> "william(at)elan.net" <william@xxxxxxxx> writes:

> Alternatives are in fact available, but those who know about it can not 
> share it right now since WG chairs have requested that until last call is
> completed that people on this list evaluate current drafts that are based
> on Sender-ID proposal.


I have given Ryan a short answer offlist, but this restriction on
discussing alternatives kind of puts us in a catch-22.

I can understand the reasons why the co-chairs don't want the extra
destractions, but RFC3669 talks about comparing with alternatives.  If
I discuss alternatives, I will get in trouble with the co-chairs.  If
I don't discuss the alternatives, people who have come in late to the
game will likely think that there is no choice but to accept SenderID.


-wayne