(re-posted, to correct wg address.)
Tim, On 2/4/2010 10:02 AM, Tim Polk wrote: > Discuss: [Moved from discuss-discuss to a "real" discuss based on the > call...] > > Charlie Kaufman noted a number of open issues in his secdir review; the > authors' response was generally "we don't have those answers yet so we need > to be silent". I agree that these issues need not be resolved before > publication, but I do think this document would be improved by listing these > open issues. I believe there could be harm in not communicating some of > these open issues to readers. Tim, There is plenty of experience which produces a /counter-argument/, that raising issues, which are not resolved, can prompt confusion and doubt, particularly for an audience that is more hands-on and less contemplative, such as operations folk. That downside is especially apropos here because this is indeed an OA&M-related Informational document. It's not a specification and it's not really a discussion about theory. The target audience typically likes things to be concrete and directive, rather than analytic. At that, the current document probably pushes some boundaries, but at least it tries to do that with discussions of some substance, rather than merely listing other, potentially interesting topics that it has nothing to say about (yet). Note that there is a potentially infinite list of such items -- and a theoretical basis for claiming that failing to list any one of them 'might' produce harm. So I am not clear why the particular list that Charlie happened to provide is worth blocking publication for, what harm will be caused by not listing these particular items, or how listing things the document does not discuss will avoid that harm. You cite some discussion in the IESG that increased your concern, but you did not provide detail about it. Perhaps your providing that detail will clarify the nature and importance of your concern. But you also do not provide any detail about the particular changes you require. Although you cite Charlie Kaufman's review, the authors are not sure what text to add that would do less harm than leaving it out. Would you please clarify what text it is you would like to see added? In fact, your providing text that we can plug in would be the fastest way to resolve your concerns. We're CC'ing the working group mailing list on this note, to let them know about the particulars of your DISCUSS, and to solicit advice from them as well on how to get past this issue. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
