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 that we're going to address perpass
mitigations without being willing to commit to ourselves to do the
architectural work.
Sam,
Consider the level of activity on this topic that is already happening
in the IETF, as well as the nature of this initial document. I'll
suggest that that's the most important demonstration of organizational
commitment.
The document in question marks that commitment, but it needs to be
careful not to mark it beyond our current capabilities.
In particular please point me/us to established consensus documents that
define the problem space, the solution space and the architectural
choices appropriate to this topic. I'm not aware of any, but perhaps I
missed them.
Absent established documents on this topic, "justifying" is only
reasonable in terms of demonstrating thoughtfulness, not demonstrating
that the choices are "correct". Yet a term like "justify" encourages
this latter expectations. the view that we have far more community
clue about this topic than we currently have.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net