- From: Dennis Glatting <dennis.glatting@plaintalk.bellevue.wa.us>
- Date: Mon, 10 Feb 97 16:21:04 -0800
- To: David.Brownell@Eng.Sun.COM (David Brownell - JavaSoft)
- cc: ietf-tls@w3.org
> Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 09:18:09 -0800 > From: David.Brownell@Eng.Sun.COM (David Brownell - JavaSoft) > > > I believe it is incorrect to claim that rough consensus has been > > achieved on the mailing lists. If this goes forward, I believe it would > > be more accurate to state that no consensus was achieved, but that the > > request is being made anyway in the interest of expediency. > > On the other hand ... given the lack of comparably complete > alternative proposals, I believe it's more accurate to say > that there's been a LOT of inconclusive grousing. (Much more > than I like to find in my mailbox.) > > We _know_ that using assigned ports works. Alternatively, > we've seen the FTP proposal, and one's upcoming for Telnet. > That's the extent of the new proposals. The alternatives to > assigning ports are incomplete, and don't address the needs of > folk trying to roll out secured applications "soon". > > Seriously: those of you who don't like the idea of assigning > ports should really be making complete proposals (deployable > "soon") rather than just asking other folk to design to suit > your taste. > Asking questions, raising issues, expressing decent, and pursing discussion does not *require* a formal response and counter proposal. Those of us who have attended the many IPsec Photorus, SKIP, and ISAKMP/Oakley debates can attest that formality is not always the path of expediency. -dpg
Received on Monday, 10 February 1997 19:21:14 UTC