Hiya, On 18/08/14 23:52, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > Just for the proposals, I feel that a minimum of the following should > be included in the security considerations section:
Reasonable points, but just one caveat. I hope we (as a WG) don't go down the road of asking the authors of the various drafts to make them section-by-section comparable. The problem with that is that all the authors are smart folks who'll find a way to include whatever's required, so the end result would be a harder choice than we now face, between proposals where there are few substantive but numerous "style" differences. That'd also risk adding features that are not really needed too, though in this case maybe that's less of an issue. The above behaviour has been seen before, for me most recently in the now-closed NEA WG. In the end, that WG got stuck, despite goodwill and good chairing and had to ask their AD to just pick a winner, there being no remaining substantive differences between their two "live" proposals that affected folks technical opinions. So I hope (and I think, since I asked 'em:-) the WG chairs don't want to have that kind of beauty contest. Cheers, S. _______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
