Re: SSH-> Secure Shell renaming is *not* official.

[Thor Simon <tls%cs.stevens-tech.edu@localhost>]

On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 03:54:08PM +0200, Tero Kivinen wrote:
> 
> When Tatu called me on the Friday afternoon and asked would it be ok
> to submit the new version of drafts, that also had been renamed, or
> not to submit them at all (the deadline was in few hours), I didn't
> see any reason why not submit. There hadn't been single person saying
> "No" on the ietf-ssh list, thus I think we had consensus, or most
> people simply dont care. If there has been private discussion
> somewhere, I don't know about it.

That's nice, but I think that it is rather highly disingenuous.
The plain fact is that Tatu suggested that the protocol and drafts 
*must* be renamed, and that a long, painful discussion of the falsity of 
that claim ensued both on and off the WG mailing list.  How could you 
possibly think, given that very nasty and public situation involving, 
primarily, working group members, not to mention the extension of the 
chaos onto the WG mailing list, that there was anything even approaching 
consensus?

I find it interesting that the only person supporting Tatu's actions here
is one of his employees.  I note that another of Tatu's employees recently
applied related, sudden, unilateral changes to the SSH FAQ.

Thor