On 1/1/14, Russ White <russw@xxxxxx> wrote: > ..... > The fact is that the IETF has designed a suite of protocols that are mostly > unsecure, and widely used in a world where we're just starting to see the > importance of security around not only your credit card number, but also > your address book. That the IETF should make a statement saying, "we seem > to > have something backwards here, and it's about time we reverse our > assumptions," isn't a political statement at all -- it's a facing of > reality. I agree, but we should not rush the document to IESG until we get strong agreements from community. I commented before that the document should be informational not BCP, becasue it should be saying as you say, Hay we now thought about it and we think this is what we will do. Refering why I feel some politics, is if some people still want it as BCP with quick process even with some disagreements, then I think the draft became political now. > That the facing of reality has come about through any particular > political situation shouldn't imply that the statement is generally > political -- reacting to a political situation with a statement of a change > in policy isn't a political reaction, nor even (necessarily) a reaction > against the politics. Rather, it's just saying, "hey, we didn't think about > this problem before now, but now that we've thought about it, we need to > set > some new goals." I agree with you only if the draft is a statement but IMHO it is not only statement (its unclear practical statement), therefore, this document should be informational and not BCP, do you agree? > > Don't confuse the on list argument about politics with the actual point of > the draft; they're two different things entirely. I know they are different but the authors of the document still have it as BCP and they are not clear of how this document will be *used*. > > Anyway, that's my 2c. I've read the opposing arguments, and I'm still in > support of this draft. So if you support, could you just state directly how this document will be used? I understand from your message and support that you mean I support that it is giving statement-information that we the IETF will plan for future goals and practices, and the information will be used to start works to find solutions, but not used into the current IESG document review process because we still have no clear directions. AB