On Sat, Oct 29, 2005 at 11:57:29AM -0700, Eric Rescorla allegedly wrote:
We seem to be suffering from trying to hit a moving target.
Hmm... Maybe, but I think my comments are in line with comments
I've made previously. It's possible that my comments don't
agree with Russ's, of course.
That's seems to be the genesis. Hence my comments to the ietf list
a couple of months ago. What would you have us do since this seems
to be a meta argument between you and our AD?
A meta-argument? Are you saying that you think that Russ would like
you NOT to do the analysis I suggested? I'd be quite surprised to hear
that.
So what? That an AD doesn't preclude your analysis doesn't give it any
positive value. It simply means that ADs are inclusive, as they should
be. It certainly doesn't make your analysis a pre-requisite of
anything, does it?
What you need to show is why your analysis warrants special merit. For
at least two reasons.
First off, every man and his dog has a perspective in this space, why
is your perspective so special compared to the 100s of others
participating here?
Second off, we've been given very specific instructions that maximize
WG formation and those instructions are orthogonal to your
analysis. Why should we focus on your analysis to the detriment of
energy expended on WG formation?
One possibility that you might help us with is this. Is your analysis
about pre-WG formation or post WG work?
As a final note, your analysis seems very late in the day. We are no
more than a week or so away from the BOF, yet the derived I-Ds are
already on their second iteration and the whole premise was first
raised in IETF60 around a year and a half ago. To question
fundamentals now, seems unfairly late in the game.
Mark.
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org