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

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 17:12:06 -0400

Hi.

The IESG has received a request to publish
draft-harris-ssh-arcfour-fixes-02 as a proposed standard.  I'm aware
that this draft has been discussed by participants in the secsh
working group.

Does the secsh working group wish to adopt this draft as a work item
or shall I proceed with this draft as an individual submission?

(There's a third option: the working group could argue that this draft
should not be published at all.  Based on discussion on the list I
don't expect this option to be taken.)

---

From: Ben Harris <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 23:19:52 +0100

>or shall I proceed with this draft as an individual submission?

Last time this was mentioned (in March, ISTR), there was no comment on
Bill Sommerfeld's suggestion that it be sent to the IESG as an individual
submission.  I don't know about anyone else, but I couldn't see any
great advantage to turning it into a WG document, so I submitted it
individually.

-- 
Ben Harris

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 18:29:12 -0400

>>>>> "Ben" == Ben Harris <[email-masked]> writes:

    Ben> In article <[email-masked]> you write:
    >> draft-harris-ssh-arcfour-fixes-02 as a proposed standard.  I'm
    >> aware that this draft has been discussed by participants in the
    >> secsh working group.
    >> 
    >> Does the secsh working group wish to adopt this draft as a work
    >> item or shall I proceed with this draft as an individual
    >> submission?

    Ben> Last time this was mentioned (in March, ISTR), there was no
    Ben> comment on Bill Sommerfeld's suggestion that it be sent to
    Ben> the IESG as an individual submission.  I don't know about
    Ben> anyone else, but I couldn't see any great advantage to
    Ben> turning it into a WG document, so I submitted it
    Ben> individually.

I think handling it as an individual submission is fine, but the
working group effectively gets right of first refusal.

---

From: Joseph Galbraith <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 09:17:28 -0600

> great advantage to turning it into a WG document, so I submitted it

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

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

Thanks,

Joseph

---

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 11:17:18 -0400

> working group effectively gets right of first refusal.

I asked this question of the working group about a month ago and got an
apathetic response.

I don't see any requirement for the WG to take ownership.

as WG chair I don't see any problem with this going forward as an
individual submission.

						- Bill

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 12:11:05 -0400

>>>>> "Joseph" == Joseph Galbraith <[email-masked]> 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.