Stephen Farrell wrote this message on Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 12:14 +0100:
> 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
I'm not says that you MUST address issues, I'm just saying you have to
say if you address the issues, you list it, and if you don't address
it, then you state that it is vulnerable to X... The point of TCPINC
is security, so we need to make sure we know which proposals address
which issues and how...
> 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.
--
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
