From: Jen Linkova <furr...@gmail.com> Sent: 28 July 2020 23:14 To: tom petch On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 2:07 AM tom petch <ie...@btconnect.com> wrote: >> This email starts the WG Last Call for draft-ietf-opsec-ns-impact , >> Impact of TLS 1.3 to Operational Network Security Practices, >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsec-ns-impact/.
> <tp> > OPPOSE (yes, I am shouting) > > This is nowhere near ready and putting it forward so soon is ... well > ludicrous comes to mind. > > After WG adoption, comments were made to which there was no acknowledgement, > no response, I was about to oppose the adoption of the other I-D from these > authors on the grounds that until they respond to comments nothing else > should happen because when they do there are more comments waiting to be > aired. I am still of that view. Sorry, it's partially my fault. I did explicitly ask the authors to address your comments and submit a new version. I should have double-checked that the new version incorporates the feedback. <tp> Jen, it is more than that. I think that the IETF way of working is to make comments, get an acknowledgement and a response, from author, others, Chair, AD i.a., discuss the issues, accept or reject changes, new version, rinse and repeat. In this case, the next post after my comments was WGLC. This is not the process I expect. ( I thought there were other comments at adoption but cannot see them now). I did see Kathleen promising a further review; that would be helpful. And as I alluded to, four weeks ago was a quiet time, a time to progress this. Now, cut-off and post cut-off, it is that time of madness in the IETF when everyone comes out of hibernation and posts revised I-D. I track TEAS and they have just posted 484 - yes four hundred and eighty four - pages of revised I-Ds which will keep me quiet for much of August. Interesting as TLS is, it is behind them in the queue. Tom Petch Dear authors, would you be able to address Tom's comments ASAP so the new revision can be reviewed during the WGLC? > I do see that a revised I-D has just appeared in among the thousand or so I-D > that appear around the time of an IETF meeting, a timing that I sometimes > think is designed to let it slip through unnoticed. Given all those other > I-D - silly authors - it may be more than three weeks before I get my > thoughts together. Just to clarify: would you prefer not to have the WGLC around IETF weeks at all? -- SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list OPSEC@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
