On Nov 7, 2012, at 6:56 PM, Randy Bush wrote: <snip> > in the ietf, we tend not to put things in charters we > are not confident of achieving.
My point has been that I believe we _can_ address this problem, but comments in the mail archives and the threats draft itself outlaw this work. I really feel that we need to at least acknowledge them in the threats doc. > to me, the core of the problem is what semantics need to be communicated > and the set of actions a distant player is expected to perform and what > effect those actions should have. once we understand that, we can worry > about the syntax and how it's transported. i.e. any bgp, dns, rpsl, foo > transport discussion is just noise at the moment. Let's say there _is_ a solution, but there's another solution for _other_ threats. How do we (as a wg) judge the relative merits of the two approaches if we don't recognize all of the threats? To illustrate: Let's say that I'm afraid of bears and rats, but rats are easier to catch, so I ignore bears. I would not want to try and use a rat trap to catch a bear, but that doesn't mean that bears aren't able to break into the pantry in my mountain cabin while I'm there... Now, couple that with how much one has to invest in various solutions and you may choose not to want to invest in very expensive rat traps during spring (when bears wake up and go lookin fer fud). :) I think we can get there, but either way, there is a ``there...'' Just my 0.02, Eric _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
