Subject: [jose] OPEN: Nonce/Timestamp parameter

From: Karen O'Donoghue <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 06:35:45 -0400

Folks,

The results of this poll were:
7 YES - We need to define a nonce/timestamp parameter in the base specification
1 NO - We do not need to define a nonce/timestamp parameter in the base specification
14 DISCUSS - More discussion is needed

Many people discussing this issue commented that the question was underspecified.
Based upon these results, I do not believe that a reasonable consensus call is possible
on the question as stated.  This issue remains open. Please comment on the mailing list
and be prepared to resolve in Atlanta. Thanks to all who participated in this poll.

Karen O'Donoghue (writing as working group co-chair)

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jim Schaad
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 12:05 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [jose] POLL: Nonce/Timestamp parameter

<CHAIR>

If you voted at the face-2-face please do not vote again.  If you want to provide comments please change the title from POLL to DISCUSS.

Do we need to define a nonce/timestamp parameter in the base specification?

Room vote:  6 yes, 0 no, 1 discuss

_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose