On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Dave Crocker <[email protected]> wrote:
> Doing reviews for attention to PM is really an experimental activity. We > don't have a track record of those specific types of reviews and I believe > we are some distance away from having a shared, usable model of what to > review for. > Yes we do, it's just not organized. For example, there was good discussion of the draft for IPv6 addressing in moving vehicles, and it led to changing the applicability. Maybe you're thinking we don't have an understanding of the attack vectors. That may be, but we do know what we want to protect. See the drafts/RFCs and slides from perpass. I think the criteria are pretty clear, they just take some digging to understand. > So I think what you are proposing actually ought to be its own development > project, with the goal of producing a document in the realm of "Guidelines > for doing Pervasive Monitoring Reviews of IETF Specifications." > That would be useful, as long as it's kept up to date. Scott
_______________________________________________ perpass mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
