On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Mark Nottingham <[email protected]> wrote: > On 28/07/2011, at 4:45 PM, Adam Barth wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Pete Resnick <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I think this document is real problem and I object to the current form it is >>> in. Having an algorithm without explanation as to *why* one ought to perform >>> the steps in the algorithm is completely inappropriate and not worthy of WG >>> publication. We do not do blind instructions without explanation in the >>> IETF. It also makes it nearly impossible for the IETF community to review >>> the document to see if the instructions given are sane or not. I think the >>> document either needs to be completely rewritten or needs to be withdrawn. >> >> I appreciate your being straightforward on this topic. I certainly >> understand your point of view, and I don't have a particular desire to >> twist your (or the large IETF community's) arm in this matter. Rather >> than fight over this topic, I think it would be better for me to >> withdraw the document. > > That's a bit of an extreme reaction. > > You could annotate the document with a commentary of why particular decisions > were taken. You could add an appendix. > > You could even get someone else to do this if you don't have time or interest. > > I'd rather see this document published -- even if flawed or incomplete -- > than not published. It represents a big step forward from the current > situation. Pete's just asking for how you got to where you are.
Pete seemed pretty clear. He asked me to either rewrite the document completely or withdraw it. Rather than fighting about this document, I'd rather move forward with documents the working group and the IETF are excited about publishing. Adam _______________________________________________ websec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec
