Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-xmpp-dna-05.txt

(as co-chair)

On Feb 26, 2014, at 3:28 PM, Philipp Hancke <[email protected]> wrote:

> In part, this confusion seems to be caused by the attempt to do both C2S and S2S. DNA is needed for both, but the document mostly describes S2S, which is the more complicated case.
> 
> I think starting with a C2S scenario would be better. It's alot easier because only a single party does DNA. Explaining delegation and multi-tenancy is easier, too.

That is probably because we are chartered for S2S, but not explicitly for C2S. That doesn't prevent a solution that solves both, but we need to solve S2S in order to claim victory. 

If we agree that C2S is a better problem to solve, then we would need to recharter for it. That's not a problem to do if we have reason.

Thanks!

Ben.