Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-07.txt> (Using Only Link-Local

On 3/27/14, 3:02 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 3/27/14 10:35 AM, George, Wes wrote:
> > I’d like to add another voice supporting the suggestion that this
> > document
> > include an IESG warning that it is not an IETF-recommended thing to
> > do, in
> > order to reduce possibility of confusion about whether or not IETF
> > consensus in this case is “yes this is a thing consenting adults can
> > do on
> > the privacy of their own network” vs a ringing endorsement that “IETF
> > thinks that this is a thing that you SHOULD do on your network”.
> I'm speaking as only 1/15 of the IESG, but putting IESG statements on
> the tops of documents is a very icky business, *especially* on IETF
> consensus documents. I'd much rather tell the WG, "There's a bunch of
> IETF folks who came out during Last Call and said you have to fix this,
> so go fix it" than try to get the IESG into the business of writing
> text. If there's not IETF-wide rough consensus for the document as-is,
> fix it or ditch it. Telling the IESG to "approve it, but put in a note
> from on high saying why it's bogus" is....bogus.
So I think the issue, and I don't want to second guess the chairs here
(unless asked, in which case it's my job), is that fundamentally if you
don't like this approach there's no fixing it. It's just icky.

 So if you dislike it, but concede that it does work for some people
then you're in my camp. I absolutely would not go to the wall over this
approach even if I wouldn't employ it and find it to be more trouble
then it's worth. There is evidence of successful deployments and a
plausible rational for why people find it necessary.

> pr

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature