Closing the loop:
On 3/6/15 8:12 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Friday, March 06, 2015 08:56 -0500 Sam Hartman
<hartmans-ietf(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu> wrote:
I think that the security considerations in -10 are better
than what we seem to be wordsmithing on the list.
My preference is to call -10 good enough in this regard
especially given that it is informational.
I don't support a desire to reduce the strength of security
warnings in the document, as I think John may be asking for.
No, I'm not. I think they are fine. I just see diminishing
returns in further holding the document up for fine tuning. And
I essentially agree with the part of Viktor's recent comments
that I interpret as saying "good enough".
However personally I don' have the energy to really engage in
much more of a discussion for this document.
I think AS work is quite important, and I hope that happens
at a time when I have energy to participate but it's far more
important to me that it happen regardless of my participation.
Me too. For both of us.
I just confirmed with Sam that of course he meant -12, not -10. So my
conclusion is that we are going with -12, as an Informational RFC, with
the one change being the change in example from Web to FTP.
Thanks to you all for helping drive this to completion.
On 3/6/15 9:52 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
I would agree that on the whole we want people to register RR types
through the standardization process. However, if someone actually
followed our process, as Patrik did, and defined the RR type and
documented it, and then this document sat around for eight years, as it
did, I don't think it's reasonable to hold Patrik accountable for that,
and I think it discourages others from bringing work to the IETF.
There is a much longer discussion to be had on this topic than I'm
willing to do here, but summarized: This experience puts an exclamation
point on the thought that I've had for some time, that AD-sponsored
documents, and doing things outside of the context of a WG generally, is
a really bad idea if you want something standardized in the IETF. The
reason that people have been doing so (whether consciously or just
influenced to do so) is that the WG process and coming to consensus
seemed (and truly was) hugely daunting. But we end up in situations like
this, where things get developed without the iterative
consensus-building that we're supposed to be doing. The better thing to
do in order to not discourage others and to create good work is to
improve the speed at which WGs get things done and make it less
daunting, and I believe that we've been doing that of late: We've had
several good examples of WGs that we've spun on quickly to do a focused
piece of work, and they're done in months, not years. But more beer
required to fully have that discussion.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478