Folks,
On 8/27/2014 2:58 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Your "blanket dismissal" point is nonsense. There were
literally hundreds of mails about this draft, many of them
from you and many responding to you.
This fails to distinguish between activity and substance response. In
fact, Stephen's note here is a good example of this continuing problem.
He can count it as a response, but it ignores or dismisses all of the
substantive points I raised.
That's been the pattern throughout the development and discussion of
this document. Stephen has posted quite a number of notes that
similarly dismiss concerns and assert consensus, in spite of no
management effort to track and resolve concerns that are raised.
And there remain some very basic issues with the document:
1. The latest version (-04) has almost literally no text in common
with the previous (-03). It's likely that 90-95% of the text is different:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-dukhovni-opportunistic-security-03&difftype=--hwdiff&submit=Go!&url2=draft-dukhovni-opportunistic-security-04
By itself, that should warrant re-issuing a last call and
requiring thoughtful comments on it. No matter how the changes were
made, classing that amount of new text as merely 'editorial' as Stephen
has done, is absurd.
And for at least the last two versions of the document, the author
provided no audit of what prompted the changes, relative to the comments
he received. Rather, those with concerns were each left to do their own
audit. Each time.
2. Just in this recent versions, there has been a range of
substantive concerns raised. None has received substantive responses,
and especially not from the document author.
Stephen is classing these as nitpicking. Others got fond of
classing them as bikeshedding. All of this serves to marginalize
serious comments from serious participants. Again, it's been the
pattern throughout the life of this document.
A brief list of pointers to exemplar messages is at the end of
this note. (And these are only drawn from the latest rounds with the
draft, but the pattern extends to its beginning.)
3. The author and quite a few others continue to demonstrate very
basic confusion about use of the term. If even they cannot use it
consistently and provide an explanation that matches that use, then what
is the benefit of the term?
The author's use of the term "opportunistic DANE" is an example of
the confusion. "Opportunistic TLS" probably makes sense. Opportunistic
DANE does not.
Suggestion:
Merely as a basic exercise to create some semblance of legitimate
IETF constructive discussion, I suggest that the author be directed to
respond to at least the list of postings provided below and to engage
meaningfully in resolving the concerns expressed in them.
d/
- - - - - - - -
Comments and questions that have been ignored, just on the latest drafts:
IETF list:
Eliot Lear:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/2so5XvtE92x-JxeXoThJuhGn3pk
Paul Wouters:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ZNn9XD8uIUnC7eVrFr-jkCI82D8
Benjamin Kaduk:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/NOe_YK4mBkL2J9DvZdZxRlBTk-Y
Bernard Aboba:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/nGXy1kOYaNCZWvstaBTE3Rznrxw
Dave Crocker:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/aXmkdlsmc-n-vJMWTk5RAnZdOsk
Paul Wouters:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/wgYWDEG_9DVEBpEjwJnzO4tyPCY
Michael Richardson:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/gVMFfaIcPJYxMKLICA6UEwc2vXg
SAAG list:
Eliot Lear:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/saag/current/msg05534.html
Dave Crocker:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/saag/current/msg05536.html
Steve Kent:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/saag/current/msg05418.html
Eliot Lear:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/saag/current/msg05464.html
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net