Re: WG Consensus: draft-ietf-krb-wg-kdc-model and atomicity

I'm fine with that. I don't recall any contradictory comments from folks not involved in the wg on this topic,

Cheers,
S

On 5 Jul 2012, at 21:07, Sam Hartman <[email protected]> wrote:

> 
> 
> Hi. I'm giving input as WG chair here because there was a WG discussion
> and it's chairs' job to judge consensus here.
> However, that discussion took place in the context of an IETF LC, and
> that's Stephen's judgment call, so direction on what to do for the
> document should come from him.
> 
> I believe that we have a very rough consensus within the Kerberos
> working group at least to remove sections 4.1.1.5-7 and to make no other
> changes with regard to issues surrounding lock out.  My rationale is
> that no one objected to this change/said they could not deal with it. In
> addition, no one indicated there was a nother option that they believed
> could gain rough consensus.
> 
> I too believe that there was no other option likely to gain rough
> consensus. Based on the discussion the question in my mind was wether we
> had consensus to move forward at all. Since no one objected to moving
> forward given an opportunity to do so, I believe we have that rough
> consensus.
> 
> --Sam
> _______________________________________________
> ietf-krb-wg mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg
_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg