ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: FW: Last Call: <draft-farrell-ft-03.txt> (A Fast-Track way to RFC with Running Code) to Experimental RFC

2013-01-26 10:16:35
I agree with your concerns and may suggest that the tests' results of
the running code SHOULD be reported inside a mandatory section of the
Fast-Tracked I-D to RFC.

AB

On 01/26/2013 Martin Rex wrote:
Stephen Farrell wrote:

On 01/25/2013 09:36 PM, Martin Rex wrote:

I don't know about the last time it happened, but I know about
one time in Nov-2009 in the TLS WG (now rfc5746).

I recall that and agree with the sequence of events you
describe, but I'm not sure that that situation is
relevant when considering this draft, for two reasons:

Uh-oh!



- First, that was the IETF in security-incident-handling
mode, and that's just different from normal process for
us, whether fast-tracked or not.

If I hadn't stumbled upon the TLS renegotiation issue while
discussing the proposal for TLS channel bindings, then
the "solution" would have been developed and shipped
under NDA and entirely with involvement of the IETF TLS WG
(just some selected TLS WG members), and likely there would
have been a request for rubber stamping the (half-baked) solution
*AFTER* deploymend of the fixes by major vendors.

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg03928.html
  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg03942.html


Myself, I'm worried by the idea of shortcutting review and marginalization
of comments that do not meet the discuss criteria.



- Second, there was significant controversy within the
WG before the last calls, (with many hundreds of mails;-)
so a set of WG chairs that chose to try a fast-track
experiment in such circumstances would be crazy basically.
(Remember, we're only talking about an experiment here.)


Admittedly, I deserve part of the blame for the heated discussion.

But if occasional heated discussions turn out to be a serious problem
for creating or improving technical solutions, then we may need more
procedural safeguards (such as independent leadership), not less.

The true essence of most of the 2009 TLS WG discussion was actually
fairly small and simple:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg05365.html


-Martin

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>