On 12/18/20 1:02 AM, Joe Touch wrote: > > >> On Dec 17, 2020, at 7:03 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> I think we have gone through this before. Folks (including you) raise objections. I note that the claim has no basis or ask a question which clearly shows the objection has no basis, and they omit the question, stop responding, or switch to something else. > > We do, because our input has need ignored (again) and we have better things to do. > You have provided no constructive criticism, have not proposed any text to deal with your objections or concerns, or to improve the draft in any other way and have simply argued that the draft shouldnt be published period. The total sum of your input is "do not publish this". We have not ignored it, we have engaged in a discussion replying to every objection to publication with arguments and examples, we have suggested text to address your concerns about IoT devices that cant possibly have an RNG, and other's concerns as well but none of those efforts seem sufficient or acceptable. The ignoring seem to be somewhere else. I've spent every email on this thread trying to explain why the draft should published instead of discussing how to make it better. I have better things to do as well. /ivan -- Iván Arce CTO - Security Analysis Quarkslab -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
