Subject: Re: [MEXT] Authentication option support in Binding Revocation draft

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:17:28 -0700 (PDT)

----- Original Message ----
From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
To: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 10:52:42 AM
Subject: Re: [MEXT] Authentication option support in Binding Revocation draft

...

I suggest we modify the charter to explicitly add a sentence on maintaining
4285-based mechanisms. We should also explicitly say "maintenance" so that
we don't add new features like bootstrapping for RFC 4285, for which there
was no consensus.

[behcet] Can I add another item to charter modification? 
Develop another solution nemo pd problem. 
The current charter's strict interpretation seems to allow only one.
Anybody seconding this proposal please speak up!

Regards,

Behcet

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