> On 19 Sep 2014, at 21:59, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote: > >> On Sep 19, 2014, at 4:54 PM, Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote: >> I guess that's kind of what I've been getting at: should we capture all of >> this in a threats document? >> I'm a little uncomfortable with the formality, but I'm even more >> uncomfortable with the seeming desire >> by some to sweep this all under the rug. > > I think it would be worth gathering the information in a document if someone > wants to write one, sure. Just talking and not gathering the results is a > waste of time. I think there are a fair number of people who have ideas > about how this should work. I don't know if a threats document per se is > the right thing to do, but a document where this discussion is tracked and > recorded would definitely be helpful. It would be a shame though if that > effort derailed forward progress, as such things sometimes do.
I think it would be useful to do, and needn't hold up progress. It would give us a common understanding - hopefully - of which threats are being covered and which are not. And which are handled by layers/protocols outside the scope of homenet's charter. Tim _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
