On 05/04/15 15:24, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: >>> I'd like the charter to clearly state that security considerations are >>> outside the scope of the base spec. > >> PS: The above does not mean that I think it's a problem if a >> WG want to produce a base spec and some other RFC that has the >> security analysis and defines useful security mechanisms. > > I don't think we're disagreeing. I was careful to say "outside the scope > of the base spec", as opposed to the scope of the WG.
You were indeed. And I'm being careful to say that a plan of the form "produce base spec RCC and only then start to think about security" will get pushback from me. And that said, I'm not entirely sure if we're agreeing or not, but we'd know pretty soon if this gets going, so we're fine for now:-) S. > > (The base spec is 45 pages long, and can be explained in less than one > hour. I will fight to keep it that way.) > > I'll have a look at the BCP you refer to. > > Thanks for your input, > > -- Juliusz > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > > _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
