Hi Rob,
At 21:02 27-01-2012, Rob Austein wrote:
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but it comes a bit late.
This work was done in the public view, with regular progress reports
to the SIDR WG, and we have multiple interoperable implementations
including several of the major router vendors. So, with all due
respect, I don't think the folks who have put work into this will be
all that interested in abandoning running code at this point.
I should have guessed that the above argument would be used. :-) It
is somewhat unfortunate that Huawei did not get the opportunity to
send Last Call comments as Cisco Systems and Juniper Networks Inc did.
With all due respect, I have to object to the argument of "comes a
bit late" or "work was done in the public view" as reviews end up
being a waste of time then. I don't think that is what you meant. I
don't think that my position materially affects your draft at the moment.
Monkey-in-the-middle is a common non-sexist variant of this term.
Welcome to the 21st century.
I suggest using the "sexist" variant. It's a well-known term and it
is commonly used in RFCs. If the SIDR Working Group consensus is to
be extremely politically correct (Section 3.2 of RFC 4041), I suggest
using "carbon-based-lifeform-in-the-middle".
The basic problem is that the implementers and the IETF live on
different planets. As discussed in section 7, it is pretty much
impossible to find any channel security technology which is
implemented on conventional servers (Linux, BSD, ...), is implemented
on routers, and is acceptable to the IETF security folks.
If I use this argument in future, I'll add you in the credits.
Hats off for the arguments. :-)
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf