Re: draft-harris-ssh-arcfour-fixes-02.txt: should this be a secsh draft

To: Joseph Galbraith <galb-list%vandyke.com@localhost>
Subject: Re: draft-harris-ssh-arcfour-fixes-02.txt: should this be a secsh draft
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf%mit.edu@localhost>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 12:11:05 -0400

>>>>> "Joseph" == Joseph Galbraith <galb-list%vandyke.com@localhost> writes:

    Joseph> Just so this doesn't happen out of sheer apathy...

    Joseph> What advantage would there be to the working group taking
    Joseph> this on as opposed to it proceeding as an individual
    Joseph> submission?

I actually think there are advantages to it going forward as an
individual submission provided the quality is reasonable.  IT can go
faster.

The working group should take the document if it believes it needs
consensus-based revisions or believes the review it will get as an
individual submission would be insufficient.

References:
- draft-harris-ssh-arcfour-fixes-02.txt: should this be a secsh draft
  - From: Sam Hartman
- Re: draft-harris-ssh-arcfour-fixes-02.txt: should this be a secsh draft
  - From: Ben Harris
- Re: draft-harris-ssh-arcfour-fixes-02.txt: should this be a secsh draft
  - From: Joseph Galbraith

Prev by Date: Re: draft-harris-ssh-arcfour-fixes-02.txt: should this be a secsh draft
Next by Date: break extension draft revival?
Previous by Thread: Re: draft-harris-ssh-arcfour-fixes-02.txt: should this be a secsh draft
Next by Thread: Where have our archives gone?
Indexes:

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index