On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 12:50 PM, Dave Crocker <d...@dcrocker.net> wrote:
> > >> I imagine myself as a SECDIR reviewer, and believe this would be the >> first section I would read for any document to which I'm assigned. >> Discovering there a sentence that basically says "None" would get my back >> up ("We'll see about that!"). >> >> More generally, I have had success with my proposed tactic in the past, >> so I thought I'd suggest it here. >> > > I've gotten decreasingly tolerant of using gambits in a specification > document, in order to maneuver through the process. I think the document > should say what it needs to to do its job and not have material that is > primarily for appeasement those in charge. Gambits add cruft, and often > mislead the reader into thinking there is substance when there isn't. > > (I think I hit my limit when we appeased an AD for KIM and added the > requirement for the DKIM signature cover the From: field, thereby aiding in > community misunderstanding of what DKIM does.) > > If the suggested change had any actual substance with respect to security > issues, that would be quite a different matter. But it doesn't. > > Obviously if the wg would prefer different language, we'll use it... > It's not a major issue (to me). Just a suggestion. > Reading the document, I got the impression that in your research you >> discovered some underscore names that don't quite follow the proposed >> placement. If my inference is wrong, then so is that clause. >> > > sorry, but apparently something is getting in the way of my understanding > this issue. Now I'm confused about the 'placement' reference. > I'm willing to accept that I'm inventing a problem here that doesn't actually exist, and you're advocating more generally for keeping this section as terse as possible, so let's skip it. -MSK
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop