Subject: [Id-event] Clarifying the consensus calls

From: Yaron Sheffer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 23:51:58 +0200

Hi everyone,

I believe there has been some misunderstanding around Anabelle's new
I-D and the consensus calls that Dick posted today. Here's me trying
to clarify the context:

draft-ietf-secevent-token is the draft adopted by the working
group and remains so. The WG could explicitly decide to drop
that draft, but that would be an extreme step and I don't see it
happening.

The consensus calls aim to achieve more clarity around some
aspects of this draft. Yes, some of them were explicitly
discussed in the past, but we believe that new information is
available now (specifically, a new SET profile) that justifies a
renewed discussion.

To avoid the perception of a competing draft, I will re-issue
these calls in the next day or two with the full relevant text,
instead of pointers to

draft-backman-secevent-token.

I understand the frustration of some WG members that some issues
are being reopened, and I beg for your patience. While discussing
the merits of various proposals, please emphasize your experience
from running code and from extending SET for the needs of other
organizations.

Thanks,

Yaron