Re: Last Call: Upgrading to TLS Within HTTP/1.1 to Proposed Standard

I didn't realize you were waiting for me to approve. Please do make 
the necessary changes and submit a new document.

				-Jeff

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

On 9/22/99, 5:23:55 PM, "Scott Lawrence" <lawrence@agranat.com> wrote 
regarding Re: Last Call: Upgrading to TLS Within HTTP/1.1 to Proposed 
Standard:


> > >The IESG has received a request from the Transport Layer Security
> > >Working Group to consider Upgrading to TLS Within HTTP/1.1
> > ><draft-ietf-tls-http-upgrade-02.txt> as a Proposed Standard.

> > >To: iesg@ietf.org, IETF-Announce:;
> > >From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no>
> > >Subject: Re: Last Call: Upgrading to TLS Within HTTP/1.1 to Proposed
> > >   Standard
> [...]
> >IANA considerations section for upgrade tokens is not thought 
through.
> >At the least, the registrant should be allowed to change the contact
> details
> >for a registration, so the statement
> >
> >  > 1. The registration for a given token MUST NOT be changed once
> registered.
> >
> >is obviously not what's desired.
> >
> >I'd suggest the following rules:
> >
> >1. A token, once registered, stays registered forever.
> >2. The registration MUST name a responsible party for the 
registration.
> >3. The registration MUST name a point of contact.
> >4. The registration MAY name the documentation required for the 
token.
> >5. The responsible party MAY change the registration at any time. The
> >     IANA will keep a record of all such changes, and make them
> available
> >     upon request.
> >6. The responsible party for the first registration of a "product"
> token
> >     MUST approve later registrations of a "version" token together
> with that
> >     "product" token before they can be registered.
> >7. If absolutely required, the IESG MAY reassign the responsibility 
for
> >     a token. This will normally only be used in the case when a
> responsible
> >     party cannot be contacted.
> >
> >A lot more words, but I think it's more workable.

> An excellent formulation.  The authors will gratefully accept this as 
a
> friendly amendment if the IESG concurs.

> --
> Scott Lawrence           Director of R & D        
<lawrence@agranat.com>
> Agranat Systems, Inc.  Embedded Web Technology   
http://www.agranat.com/


> ---
> You are currently subscribed to ietf-tls as: [jis@mit.edu]
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
leave-ietf-tls-557Y@lists.consensus.com