On 11/20/2013 10:41 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Just do it.
I wish:-)
> However, I am concerned by the 'bad actor' phrase. The problem is
> that it's fine as explained in the draft, but it's highly likely to
> be quoted out of context and thereby cause confusion. It would be
> safer to use a neutral term ('observer'? 'surveyor'?).
Fair point, and "bad-actor" doesn't fit that well anyway. Will
find a better term or gladly take suggestions.
S.
>
> Regards
> Brian
>
> On 21/11/2013 11:16, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Following up on item 3a from the status/plan mail [1] I sent
>> last week, Hannes and myself have written up an I-D [2] that
>> tries to capture the consensus in the room from the Vancouver
>> tech plenary and we're proposing as a BCP.
>>
>> We're deliberately trying to keep this short and sweet and to
>> not (yet) go beyond what was the gist of the hums - we think
>> progressing e.g. the threat model or the privacy BCP or other
>> bits of related work is liable to take longer and there's value
>> in documenting that the IETF as a whole has consensus on the
>> most significant bit first so those and other bits of work
>> don't all have to re-establish that as they are processed.
>> Hopefully we can all easily agree that that's a useful target
>> and focus comments on whether on not we've expressed that
>> consensus well or not.
>>
>> <boring-bit>
>> We've been bouncing versions of this around amongst the IESG
>> and IAB for the last week, and process-wise, that has been
>> fun already. As you'll see from section 3 of the draft, we can
>> no longer just shoot out an RFC agreed by the IESG and IAB so
>> the plan for this is that when Hannes and I figure this looks
>> ready, based on your comments, then we'll ask Jari to start a
>> 4-week IETF LC for it. When he thinks that's ok he'll start it
>> and then we'll see how that goes. Assuming that goes well, then
>> sometime during IESG evaluation the IAB will decide if they
>> like the final text (or not, which'd be "interesting") and if
>> they do then an IAB note saying "yep, we like it" will be added
>> sometime during/after IESG evaluation before this goes to the
>> RFC editor. In an ideal world, you'll all love the -00 already
>> and tell us that and we'll be done with all of the above super
>> duper process stuff by the end of the year. (Haven't we built
>> ourselves a lovely crazy process? ;-)
>>
>> I really hope we don't end up with a process debate over this,
>> since the above, silly and all as it is, should achieve the
>> desirable outcome which is a simple BCP, approved by the IESG
>> after an IETF LC and also supported by the IAB. The value in
>> that is that it seems to be as close as we can get to the same
>> setup as RFCs 1984 and 2804 which is the right kind of heritage
>> for this one. So there is a reasonably good reason for the
>> process-crap.
>> </boring-bit>
>>
>> Anyway, ignoring process, comments on this are welcome, so
>> please take a read of the two pages of content and let us know
>> what you think. If you do think its already good enough for
>> starting an IETF last call, then saying that is useful as well.
>>
>> And since the IETF LC will happen on the [email protected] list,
>> using this list for initial processing should be fine.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> S.
>>
>> [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/perpass/current/msg01016.html
>> [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrell-perpass-attack
>> _______________________________________________
>> perpass mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
>>
> _______________________________________________
> perpass mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
>
>
_______________________________________________
perpass mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
