Dave, (This exchange is mostly a repeat of a mail Dave sent to the saag list in [1], to which I responded in [2]. But its fair enough to comment to this list as well I guess.) You say "promptly decided." That is incorrect. I had sent a mail to this list last Friday, at the end of the extended IETF LC, saying that was the plan. (See [2]) Your "blanket dismissal" point is nonsense. There were literally hundreds of mails about this draft, many of them from you and many responding to you. I have concluded that you are just in the rough when it comes to the non-editorial comments you have made on -04. (All of which you also made a number of times before I believe and all of which have been responded to by the author or others as far as I can see.) Yes, the diff between -03 and -04 is unusually large. However, I consider it editorial and for a short informational document like this, while that's unusual, I think it is ok. And the changes as far as I can see do reflect the list discussion since -03 was published. There is also at this point maybe more risk of damage being done by endless editorial nitpicking than by proceeding to IESG evaluation with text that I believe captures the rough consensus, which is not very rough at all for the meat of the topic, but is certainly rougher for the specific text. S. [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/saag/current/msg05528.html [2] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/saag/current/msg05533.html On 27/08/14 05:12, Dave Crocker wrote: > Folks, > > A new version of the draft was issued today. > > And the Sponsoring AD promptly decided that there is IETF consensus on > the draft, scheduling it for the next IESG telechat. The Sponsoring AD > has deemed all changes since the -02 version is minor. > > This is spite of the fact that /nearly every word/ of the newest draft > is new. > > Yes, really: > > > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-dukhovni-opportunistic-security-03&difftype=--hwdiff&submit=Go!&url2=draft-dukhovni-opportunistic-security-04 > > I did another detailed review of the draft: > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/saag/current/msg05531.html > > including: > >> Summary: >> >> The paper defines and explains flexible approach to the use of >> encryption on the Internet. It assigns the term 'opportunistic >> security' to this term. >> >> The latest draft has extensive changes from the previous version. >> >> Although many of the changes are quite helpful, the document still >> suffers from confusing or unexplained terminology and some unfortunately >> initial organization. >> >> A number of points from previous reviews have not been addressed. >> >> The paper continues to freely make strong assertions, without >> providing any substantiation or even, in some cases, explanation. At a >> minimum, every term that is used, every assertion that is made and >> anything else that derives from Internet experience should be documented. >> >> Concerns with the term "opportunistic security" persist. It is both >> vague and overblown, given the specific technical point it is meant to >> address. That concern is about encryption and the term should make that >> clear. >> >> The paper still needs extensive revision before it should be >> considered for publication. > > > Blanket dismissal of substantive concerns is not the usual approach to > work in the IETF. > > d/ >