On Mar 29, 2007, at 08:31, james woodyatt wrote:
[...] I've had personal experience recently with exactly the sort of
mistaken impression, which I mentioned in my first message, that I was
concerned about. That experience led me to take the very bold step of
asking the authors to consider an editorial change to prevent what I
thought were misunderstandings about the IETF consensus. [...]
I should explain that this experience was in the context of discussions
inside Apple about how best to respond to this:
<http://nvd.nist.gov/nvd.cfm?cvename=CVE-2007-1338>
Despite the referenced draft being informational, and despite the
caution in its introduction, and despite efforts to bring both these
facts to the attention of decision makers, the NAP draft has been
referenced as if it were an already published BCP.
I apologize again for not keeping up-to-date on the IETF consensus about
this issue. When I last spent much time participating in IETF
discussions, this was the subject of a long-running and sometimes very
heated controversy. I suppose I should be thankful that the controversy
has ended.
Again, my apologies all around. I was trying to participate in good
faith. I did not mean to arouse hostility and I'm mortified to have
done so. I'd like to assure the working group that I'll make the
appropriate recommendations to decision makers at Apple about how to
proceed in compliance with the recommendations of the IETF.
--james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
member of technical staff
apple inc.