--On Friday, March 06, 2015 08:56 -0500 Sam Hartman
<hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> I think that the security considerations in -10 are better
> than what we seem to be wordsmithing on the list.
> My preference is to call -10 good enough in this regard
> especially given that it is informational.
>
> I don't support a desire to reduce the strength of security
> warnings in the document, as I think John may be asking for.
No, I'm not. I think they are fine. I just see diminishing
returns in further holding the document up for fine tuning. And
I essentially agree with the part of Viktor's recent comments
that I interpret as saying "good enough".
> However personally I don' have the energy to really engage in
> much more of a discussion for this document.
>
> I think AS work is quite important, and I hope that happens
> at a time when I have energy to participate but it's far more
> important to me that it happen regardless of my participation.
Me too. For both of us.
john