On May 29, 2009, at 10:46 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
--On Friday, May 29, 2009 07:44:05 PM -0700 Kurt Zeilenga
On May 29, 2009, at 2:36 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
I would ask chairs to put a deadline for reaching the consensus on
channel bindings, somewhere around 1 month, 2 months max.
With what consequences if the deadline is not met?
I don't intend to participate in discussions in this document for 6
I don't intend to discuss participate in discussions any longer than
necessary. While I hope consensus can be reached quickly and am
encouraged by the list discussions, I'm not holding my breath.
My current goal is to try to close on the channel binding type
negotiation issue within the next 2-3 weeks, and have I-D back in
end of June.
That's funny, because I think the rest of us have agreed that, with
a small change to SCRAM and GS2, we can conclude those documents
_without_ resolving the question of how negotiation should be
performed, because we've left the door open for a variety of
negotiation techniques to be added later, if/when we reach a
consensus that such negotiation is needed and on how it should work.
Have you missed that part?
No, I think you just read too much into my statement.
By "channel binding type negotiation issue", I was referring to the
subject of this poll. A poll which closes in about a week. Allowing for
some time to determination of consensus, and WG discussion of that
determination, and editor time, I hope to have another I-D in another
week. And then last call that. About 2-3 weeks in today.
By "channel binding type negotiation issue", I don't mean we have to
reach consensus on a channel binding type solution. On what the SCRAM-ID
says about channel binding while considering the impact of what it says
on possible channeling type solutions.