> From: Ned Freed [mailto:ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxx] > > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > > This isn't a call for bureaucracy, but for precision. As > this year's > > > glitch shows, extreme precision is needed in the rules. > > > > Interesting. What it showed me is that we cannot anticipate every > > contingency. > > Dave, I'm sorry, but it didn't show that at all. The specific > problem that arose here WAS anticipated and analyzed and the > correct thing to do in this case WAS determined and > documented. See RFC 3797 section 5.1 for specifics. There were two problems and very few security analyses anticipate more than one failure simultaneously. Reducing the number of critical assets, i.e. removing the dependence on the list order, significantly reduces the scope for unexpected interactions. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf