Yes, the passive voice *is* good for avoiding responsibility! On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Pete Resnick <presn...@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:
> On 2/20/15 1:43 PM, Richard Barnes wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Stephen Farrell < > stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> wrote: > >> >> The sense of the UTA Working Group was to complete >> work on this document about best practices for TLS in general, and to >> initiate work on a separate document about opportunistic TLS. >> >> >> No, I don't believe we've decided that UTA will be the place where >> we develop a BCP on OS. [...] >> >> I'd really really hope we disentangle that discussion from this >> draft though, so please replace the last sentence with: >> >> "The sense of the UTA Working Group was to complete >> work on this document about best practices for TLS in general, and to >> for work on a separate BCP document about opportunistic security >> to be done later." >> > > > FWIW: > - That text is not mine; it has been in since -07. > - I would personally be A-OK with UTA working on opportunistic TLS, > especially in the sense of providing advice on how to interop with old > stuff in ways most likely to result in TLS usage. > - It's probably not a great idea to say that in this document > > How about: > "The sense of the UTA Working Group was to complete work on this document > about best practices for TLS in general, and to leave recommendations about > opportunistic TLS for future work." > > > Or we could drop mention of the WG entirely: > > "This document specifies best practices for TLS in general. A separate > document with recommendations for the use of TLS with opportunistic > security is to be completed in the future." > > pr > > -- > Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/> > <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/> > Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478 > >
_______________________________________________ Uta mailing list Uta@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
