The chair's message is a mis-characterization of the history and status
of this document.
As the cognizant AD, Eric Rescorla discussed the document status with
the WG chairs early this year. Paul stated that that there were a two
paragraphs in the version -12 text (in sections 3.4 and 3.5) that were
sticking points for David Cooper. A telecon was arranged and took place
on April 12. The participants were Paul, David, Eric, Richard Barnes
(acting as secretary) and me. The outcome of that telecon was text,
crafted by Richard, which was agreed to by all parties. This text was
incorporated into the next version (-13) of the document which was
published later in April.
I assumed that were were done, but I was wrong. After this version was
posted, David sent a large number (~29) of additional comments to the
list. Thus Paul's assertion that there were only two paragraph that need
to be changed to satisfy David was incorrect.
I made changes based on all but 6 or 7 of David's comments. Most of his
comments were straightforward and I agreed that the requested changes
were appropriate. I posted a message detailing the changes and the
rationale for not making changes for the remaining few comments. A new
version (-14) was posted on May 29. I think the changes I made represent
a good faith effort to address David's legitimate issues, especially
since all of the telecon participants believed that we had already done
so in April.
Ryan Sleevi and I began an exchange based on his comments, on version
-14. Ryan argued that some of the text did not represent the intent of
CT, or the practice of CT implementations, based on his experience as a
developer. I countered that the analysis is based on 6962-bis, and if
that text was not consistent with intent and practice, from his
perspective, then the document should change. We agreed to table our
discussion pending relevant changes to 6962-bis.
I believe there have been no changes to 6269-bis that are relevant to
the points Ryan and I discussed, and thus no new version of the threat
analysis is merited.
Steve
Hi, all:
Paul and I discussed the status of the threat document and
agree that it is not appropriate for chairs to make changes
to the content of working group documents in the absence of
working group consensus. We've been deadlocked on the
threat analysis document for several years now, and while
we would very much like for the parties who disagree to
find a compromise, and for the document to be published, it
does not weaken the protocol document if it is not. So, if
the authors and those who have issues with the current text
cannot find some compromise text before the working group
shuts down, the document will not be published as a working
group document. The authors, of course, are free to
pursue publication through alternative processes should they
continue to be unable to arrive at a compromise.
Melinda
_______________________________________________
Trans mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
