> On 16 Nov 2015, at 19:16, Stephen Kent <[email protected]> wrote: > > Andy, >>> On Nov 5, 2015, at 3:53 PM, Karen Seo<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Folks, >>> >>> I think the authors have brought up some pertinent issues which have helped >>> inspire other work which subsumes them. So I thank them but agree that it >>> seems appropriate to drop this draft since those issues are now being >>> covered in other documents and those documents have additional detail. >>> Randy's I-D discusses INR transfers. Steve's draft on adverse action >>> provides a detailed analysis of the "operational fragility" of the RPKI in >>> the face of attacks and errors. So, if the adverse actions draft is >>> adopted by the WG, we (the WG) could use the requirements stemming from >>> these two IDs as the basis for a solution(s) document. Just personal >>> preference, but I also find having one document per topic/issue (at least >>> when they're as complex as is the case with the threat analysis) easier to >>> follow and would also like to separate defining of issues and their >>> requirements from describing the solution. >> If I’m reading your argument correctly, you’re saying that >> validation-reconsidered is not necessary because Kent’s adverse actions >> draft provides a solution. > I can't say what Karen may be thinking, but my argument is that > validation-reconsidered > contains vague arguments about RPKI fragility and a technically ambiguous > description > of a proposed change to 6487. What I believe is needed is a more rigorous > description > of the problems being solved and a clear proposal of how to solve them. If the > co-authors who said they will assume responsibility for this doc make > significant > revisions along these lines, then maybe the result will be worth pursuing.
As I stated at the mic I am willing to work on making this document more clear (and shorter) *if* the working group agrees that we can work on this in a constructive manner. It is okay if we have different opinions if we can all respect them and discuss the content, staying away from hyperboles and personal remarks. Unfortunately this hasn't always been the case. The second point I tried to make is that if it is already clear that consensus will never be reached on this, then spending more effort on it is a waste of everyone's time. I understand that there are no guarantees that consensus will be reached, but if there is a guarantee that consensus will *not* be reached, then the exercise is pointless. So far this discussion actually looks promising and more constructive than it has been. Can I interpret your statement about 'maybe the result will be worth pursuing' to mean that you agree that we can continue discuss this constructively, and it is not certain a priori that it will be rejected? Thanks, Tim _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
