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

Re: rough consensus

To: kent@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Kent Crispin)
Subject: Re: rough consensus
From: ulf@xxxxxxxx (Ulf Möller)
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 22:36:09 +0100 (NFT)
Cc: ietf-open-pgp@xxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <> from "Kent Crispin" at Oct 30, 97 09:33:20 am
Sender: owner-ietf-open-pgp@xxxxxxx

> Perhaps, then, you would rather have no standard at all, than a
> standard that refers to PGP's CMR implementation?  

Or, perhaps, a standard that describes the "rough consensus"? Of
course, that would not keep PGP from documenting their CMR in an
informational RFC.

> To put it a bit more baldly, the question is are you willing to
> disrupt the process if you don't get things your way?

Is PGP if they don't get things their way?

References:
- Re: rough consensus
  - From: Kent Crispin

Prev by Date: Re: What do we have to do today?
Next by Date: Re: CMR/ARR and OpenPGP (Re: What this WG is doing)
Previous by thread: Re: rough consensus
Next by thread: the security case against CMR (Re: rough consensus)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread