On 2011/07/29 8:58, Adam Barth wrote:
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document either needs to be completely rewritten or needs to be withdrawn.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.
Yes indeed. That's his style. To me, it seems close to your style :-).
He asked me to either rewrite the document
completely or withdraw it.
He explicitly wrote that this was his personal opinion. The fact that he
said he won't raise a DISCUSS means that he will respect WG consensus.
Rather than fighting about this document,
I'd rather move forward with documents the working group and the IETF
are excited about publishing.
Well, come on. There are lots of documents in the IETF that nobody is
really excited about. Think about all the NAT-related stuff to start with.
And I hope you will admit to yourself that there's tons of stuff within
and outside of the IETF that's way more exciting than MIME sniffing. As
you probably understand better than others, it nevertheless seems to be
necessary.
Regards, Martin.
_______________________________________________
websec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec
