On 03/18/2015 03:11 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > My conclusion of the discussion so far is that we do not have > consensus > to change the gUM API to enable the application to specifically > request > persistent permission, so I think we should simply change the Security > Architecture document requirement. > > > I don't really think this gets the job done. The Security Arch document > has been through IETF WG LC, so just changing it isn't really right > either. I think we actually need to discuss this in some live forum, > whether a telechat or a meeting. Is this based on needing more people to state an opinion on this point? (I think we have the options covered - either add a mechanism or delete the requirement; so far nobody's spoken up in favor of adding the mechanism). Since this is an IETF document, and IETF is having a meeting next week, perhaps we should take the discussion there?
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2015 18:52:20 UTC