-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Tom.Petch wrote: ... >>> If you're here for a rubber stamp, you came to the wrong WG ;-) >> Rubber-stamp? No, Joe. The UK CPNI rubberstamp is more than enough, and >> when it comes to advice on this issues, I believe it's even more >> credible. Ask the question in bugtraq or full-disclosure, and that's >> most likely the conclusion you'll get to. > > Which is for me the crux of the issue. This document is a done deal, let it go. If the document is a done deal, it should not be published as an RFC - individual or otherwise. If the document is being proposed as a WG item, then modifying it to be in line with the WG's viewpoint is not only appropriate, it is required. What that viewpoint is will be determined in the WG by consensus, but assuming that we cannot modify the document is a non-starter. > On the other hand, looking at the references, I see that while much of it is > based on IETF RFC, there are also a number of IETF I-D cited and I think that > our efforts would be better spent progressing these to RFC, after which, this > document may be worth revisiting. Not all of those RFCs or IDs are standards track or BCPs; some are informational, and many give more conservative advice than this document does. If this document is intended to reflect the sum of current IETF views, then it is *definitely* not done. Joe -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAknuCFQACgkQE5f5cImnZrs5iwCgz3/mNjZDMTgXxg9gIK4zdNf0 ctIAoPaNNYvne2dJcolon9Bjx1BREZDe =kaPP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf