On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 7:45 PM Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[email protected]> wrote:
> A bit late, but we did get some good review from Gen Art and some opsawg > members. This yielded a rev 03 and will certainly lead to an 04. With > that, we will push this draft forward to the IESG after all pending > comments are addressed. > Thank you, I have just posted -04, and think that this addresses the open comments. Joe's comments suggesting a magic header led to a significant improvement -- I now suggest vendors expect a file extension, header, or use a different DHCP codepoint for encrypted configs. I'm intentionally not being too prescriptive, so vendors can choose other solutions if they fit their deployment model better. I've also addressed Tom's comments by including additional text on the applicability, and that this issue is common in other industries / environments as well. If / when this gets sent to the IESG, I will obviously not be the responsible AD - I will conscript^W politely ask for someone else to carry it, and will recuse myself from balloting (as is standard practice). W > > Who in opsawg would be interested in serving as shepherd for this draft? > @Tom Petch, I know you called out some prior art concern. Would you have > an interest in shepherding? In general, I think the draft is (or very soon > will be) in good shape. I would have liked to see a security directorate > review, but no current reviews have called out serious security issues. > > Joe > > > On Feb 4, 2020, at 12:41, Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > With the publication of -02 of this draft, it seems to have reached > stability. There has been interest in both usage an implementation of this > draft expressed in the past, but discussion has been quiet lately. > > > > This email serves as a two-week start of a WG LC for this document. > Please [re-]read this draft and comment on its content as well as whether > or not you feel it’s ready. WG LC will conclude on February 18, 2020. > > > > Authors and contributors, please reply on-list as to whether or not you > are aware of any intellectual property attributed to this work. Reply that > either you are not aware of any such IP, or reply with the details of known > IP while also making sure you complete any IPR disclosures in data tracker. > > > > Joe and Tianran > > _______________________________________________ > > OPSAWG mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > > -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
