On 06/30/2014 01:31 PM, joel jaeggli wrote: >> >> Personally, if the final sentence is the considered opinion of >> the IESG, I would rather not publish as an RFC - a permanent >> archival document - a description that the same RFC says is >> inadequate. I would rather that the IESG return the document to >> the working group and request a replacement that “sufficiently >> describes the general issue”. > I would hold that option out to the w.g. and the authors, Though I > don't personally think the effort to produce a document for the > purpose satisfying the IESG as a particularly worthy goal. So if > the sentiment (which as I interpret it as being the case) is that > the document in present form adresses a real problem and that it > should be dealt with in a discrete fashion rather than rolled up > with the generic problem of split tunneling then I can live with > myself.
Agreed. This point has been made a number of times already on the mailing-list (and off-list too). That aside, the argument of "this being a specific case of split tunelling" has been argued against both on and off-list. This post summarizes the issue pretty well, I think: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsec/current/msg01565.html> (and comes with the "extra" of someone working on VPN code). But at this point in time I can live with the IESG note, if that's what it takes. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: [email protected] PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
