Extremely well said Tom !
Rgs,
R.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ronald Bonica"<[email protected]>
To:<[email protected]>;<[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 5:11 PM
Folks,
Thanks for introducing this document!
I would like to bring the authors' attention to the following
documents that are working in OPSEC:
- draft-behringer-lla-only
- draft-baker-opsec-passive-ip-address
To some extent, draft-grow and draft-behringer are debating with one
another. While draft-baker is not directly involved in the debate, it is
not uninvolved, either. It is a shame that the three documents are being
considered in different WGs.
I think it a bigger shame that draft-ietf-grow-private-ip-sp-cores is
not in the RFC Editor queue awaiting publication!
It is a natural companion to RFC6598 and could have, should have, been
in the queue at the same time. This I-D was relevant when it was first
written 2 years ago, and I see its relevance decreasing with time, as
people stumble over the mistakes that this I-D could have prevented. It
has taken those 2 years to get this I-D IETF-ready, little has changed
in the content in that time, and it is time we got it out of the door.
Of course there is scope for improvement, there always is, but that is
an argument for never publishing anything. If the authors of the other
I-Ds want to build on it, then of course they can produce a bis that
covers more, but let's publish what we have got.
Tom Petch
For the purpose of discussing these three documents, I think that a
little cross-posting is acceptable.
--------------------------
Ron Bonica
vcard: www.bonica.org/ron/ronbonica.vcf
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
