MFA Interop Working Group

[David Walker <>]

Yeah, we haven't really talked about that; I've been biting my fingers, too.  We also should send notes to the Participants, Assurance, and REFEDS lists to let them know that we're open for comments.  Here's a proposal...

• We've asked that comments go to the Assurance list.  We should use that list for discussion of the issues, but we'll use the MFA-Interop list and our calls, as necessary, for discussion of specific changes to the documents.
• I'll send notes to Participants, Assurance, and REFEDS later today to encourage comments.
• Eric, go ahead and respond to Tom on the Assurance list, and I'll probably chime in, too.

Sound OK to everyone?  Note the implicit encouragement that we all subscribe to the list.

David

On 04/21/2016 09:35 AM, Eric Goodman wrote:

Hi David, Karen,

 

Looking at Tom’s email this AM, I’m biting my tongue (fingers?) to resist just responding to some of his questions figuring you two may have a formal response model in mind.

 

Let me know how you plan to respond. I have some points I’d like to make sure are made to some of the questions (though many of those are likely to be the same/similar as what other members would say). But don’t want to jump the gun on whatever process you have in mind.

 

Might be worth sending out comments to the group on your planned approach too (unless free for all responses are good enough for now). I understand that you may be creating a “just in time” planned approach in this context. :)

 

--- Eric

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature