Re: WG Last Call (third time's the charm?) for SSH core drafts

["Joseph Galbraith" <galb-list%vandyke.com@localhost>]

> > but I think it would be a mistake to proceed with it in the main
> > document as underspecified as it is.  A poor, ambiguous
> > specification is worse than none at all.
> 
> so, until recently, we had clear consensus to go forward with the
> admittedly woefully underspecified x.509 wording pending actual
> implementation experience.
> 
> do we want more delay?

We agreed to change the draft in August but
it didn't get done, and now there doesn't
currently appear to be consensus.

I would say create a new working group
document for x.509 and remove it
from the transport draft.

I'll edit it unless Darren wants to.

- Joseph