Re: [Gen-art] Gen-Art telechat review of draft-farrell-perpass-attack-04

2014-01-21 Thread Scott Brim
Sam: I believe that all you ask is still there. We will consider PM at architecture time, and anyone can contribute. We'll take it seriously. What's missing is the requirement to demonstrate that you have covered all the issues, to an unknown level. Essentially this is how we work already.

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-Art telechat review of draft-farrell-perpass-attack-04

2014-01-21 Thread Dave Crocker
On 1/21/2014 1:38 PM, Sam Hartman wrote: I think that consideration of perpass at the architectural level, being prepared to justify decisions, and seeking adequate review of those decision ... I value integrity and honesty very highly and am feel sick when I think about claiming to the world

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-Art telechat review of draft-farrell-perpass-attack-04

2014-01-19 Thread Eliot Lear
Jari, I oppose changes made to the document in the last round as stated below. If they remain, I would urge publication as Informational and not BCP: In particular, architectural decisions, including which existing technology is re-used, may significantly impact the vulnerability of

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-Art telechat review of draft-farrell-perpass-attack-04

2014-01-19 Thread l.wood
of draft-farrell-perpass-attack-04 Jari, I oppose changes made to the document in the last round as stated below. If they remain, I would urge publication as Informational and not BCP: In particular, architectural decisions, including which existing technology is re-used, may

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-Art telechat review of draft-farrell-perpass-attack-04

2014-01-19 Thread Stewart Bryant (stbryant)
I share these concern. Stewart Sent from my iPad On 19 Jan 2014, at 08:30, Eliot Lear l...@cisco.com wrote: Jari, I oppose changes made to the document in the last round as stated below. If they remain, I would urge publication as Informational and not BCP: In particular,

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-Art telechat review of draft-farrell-perpass-attack-04

2014-01-19 Thread Stephen Farrell
On 01/19/2014 08:30 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: Jari, I oppose changes made to the document in the last round as stated below. If they remain, I would urge publication as Informational and not BCP: In particular, architectural decisions, including which existing technology is re-used,

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-Art telechat review of draft-farrell-perpass-attack-04

2014-01-19 Thread l.wood
@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: Gen-Art telechat review of draft-farrell-perpass-attack-04 On 01/19/2014 08:30 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: Jari, I oppose changes made to the document in the last round as stated below. If they remain, I would urge publication as Informational and not BCP: In particular

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-Art telechat review of draft-farrell-perpass-attack-04

2014-01-19 Thread Christian Huitema
Nevermind, I'll just use a vendor extension. Goodbye. Rinse and repeat with any other protocol that allows extensions. That’s a very practical concern. If standard solutions are too hard to develop, then products will use proprietary solutions instead, and we will not have won much defense

[Gen-art] Gen-Art telechat review of draft-farrell-perpass-attack-04

2014-01-18 Thread Scott Brim
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document:

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-Art telechat review of draft-farrell-perpass-attack-04

2014-01-18 Thread Jari Arkko
Thanks for your review, Scott. Jari ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art