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.
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
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
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
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,
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,
@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
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
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:
Thanks for your review, Scott.
Jari
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
10 matches
Mail list logo