Joe Touch wrote this message on Sun, Aug 03, 2014 at 22:36 -0700: > I thought I understood the goals of the charter but the points raised by > others leads me to conclude none of us does and that the charter is mostly a > hammer in search of a nail justified by a meaningless BCP. > > I still believe tcp-AO-enc has its utility against connection attacks, but I > don't see how any current proposal can address antitracking via > unauthenticated means.
I don't see antitracking in the charter... Maybe I'm missing something? > > On Aug 3, 2014, at 5:17 PM, Stephen Farrell <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> On 04/08/14 01:08, Joe Touch wrote: > >> By all means. Stand on process over correctness. > > > > Frankly, I don't see how you could both consider that the > > charter is broken and yet contribute a proposal for how > > to meet the goals of the charter. You certainly did the > > latter (remotely) at IETF-90, and now seem to be doing > > the former, in this thread. > > > > So, its not just a process point. I really am puzzled by > > your behaviour, which seems to be totally inconsistent. > > (Esp. given that you are well aware of IETF processes.) > > > > S. > > > > > >> > >> Joe > >> > >>> On Aug 3, 2014, at 5:03 PM, Stephen Farrell <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> Joe, > >>> > >>>> On 04/08/14 00:48, Joe Touch wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On Aug 3, 2014, at 4:25 PM, Stephen Farrell <[email protected]> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Joe, > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 03/08/14 16:42, Joe Touch wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We can either discuss these issues or continue to ignore them. > >>>>> > >>>>> Please either provide evidence that "these issues" were ignored > >>>>> during the charter discussion, > >>>> > >>>> The contradiction speaks for itself. > >>> > >>> Frankly I don't think that's at all sufficient, nor > >>> even remotely compelling. A pointer to where you or > >>> someone raised this point when the charter was in > >>> play on this list or the IETF list might help. Absent > >>> that, or even with that and no apparent support that > >>> its a real issue, my conclusion is that you are just > >>> second guessing the IETF consensus process and therefore > >>> ought be ignored on this point. -- John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579 "All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not." _______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
