From: "John Fenley" <pontifier(_at_)hotmail(_dot_)com>
...
I've not responded to you counters to my counters to your points about
Challenge/Response systems, because unless you're working on an ID,
I fear it would be a waste of effort.
So if we were agreed, how is communicating your ideas a waste of effort?
It is a waste to repeat things too frequently, particularly if you
don't have a stake in any resulting consensus. I think Challenge/Response
systems are hopeless for the reasons repeatedly advanced by others.
C/R schemes are like RMX (with the new RR) in the sense that neither
will be widely used (RMX even worse). Unlike RMX, C/R systems don't
have much potential for noise and distraction in the IRTF/ITF, because
they don't require any action by the IETF. The worst effect of errors
in a C/R BCP would failing to discourage bad C/R systems, which is
uninteresting because the C/R notion is hopeless and not a big problem
even if I'm wrong about that. Bad implementations of good ideas don't
survive unless they're pushed by very big outfits that also don't read
BCPs and RFCs.
So you decided not to respond. come up with some suggestions of your own
then.
Perhaps you don't like having to defend your ideas at every turn. I welcome
it.
It makes those Ideas stronger.
I'd take offense at that if I didn't suspect you've confused me
with someone else. It's not as if I've been shy about defending
ideas I care about.
Back to the main point, are you working on a C/R BCP document? I'd be
honor bound to read a draft ID and comment as constructively as I can.
In short, talk about what a third party should write in an ID is cheap.
I try not to do too much of it.
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg