RE: Interim Meeting

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>]

James,

The fact that the requirements document was published as an I-D speaks for
itself WRT the intended review community.  If my desire was for review only
by the customers of VeriSign-GRS it wouldn't have been published as an I-D.


What I have said is that this document has been available for review to the
IETF community at large since March 2000.  It is completely incorrect for
anyone to say that they haven't had an opportunity to review this draft.
Assertions to the contrary are baseless.

Let me be clear about what I mean: the requirements draft has been out for
broad IETF review for 10+ months.  If people are only now taking notice
because we are forming a WG, it would be more productive to stop complaining
and get comments in _now_ than to insist that there hasn't been ample time
for review.

<Scott/> 

-----Original Message-----
From: James Seng/Personal [mailto:James@Seng.cc]
Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2001 10:23 AM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott; ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject: Re: Interim Meeting


Scott,

I am not against the interim meeting and in fact, I think it is a good
idea. It is a pity (or perhaps lucky) I wont be able to attend it.

Your reqs spec has been published as an individual I-D, largely ignored
by the other community because they see it as primarly NSI focus with
your registrars. I know you it wasnt meant to be but that is the
perspective share by others.

Now, if it is a WG I-D, i think we need to go out and correct the
perspection that it is not just an NSI I-D. It is beyond that and it is
going to come back haunt them if they dont take note now.

Your I-D will make great input to this going-to-be WG. But as an WG I-D,
I think it is safe to safe to say that we need more reviews beyond your
registrars. I am sure the other registries have their comments too so
why not hear them out?

Unless of course you mean you couldnt care less about what the rest of
the registries thinks...in that case, I shall rest my case.