Bernard Aboba wrote: > Do we really need “IESG clarification” or a “consensus check” to verify > that IESG approval of a work item for channel bindings should be > interpreted as approval to actually work on channel bindings???
No. > Given that Channel Bindings is discussed in both RFC 3748 and 5247, I > think we can say definitively that regardless of whether Channel Bindings > are actually useful (personally, I have doubts) that they are within the > the scope of applicability of RFC 3748. Yes. > However, since those documents make it clear that Channel Bindings were > not intended as a generic authorization exchange (despite the confusion on > that point within the Channel Bindings document). Therefore IESG > approval of > a Channel Bindings work item should not be construed as a license to change > the definition of Channel Bindings to satisfy another distinct need. Doing > so would require updating of RFC 3748 and 5247, which is not within the EMU > WG charter. The discussion here is (a) if we can get *some* generic authorization passed via methods used for Channel Bindings, and (b) is that a good idea. I think that the answer to (a) is "yes", and (b) is "some say yes, some say no". Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
