Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] NAT Reveal / Host Identifiers

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi Ted,

As far as this document is concerned, we are open to address technical concerns. It will be helpful if these concerns are specific enough and hopefully in reference to http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios-05.

Adding a discussion on potential misuses can be considered to address the comment from Stephen if those are not redundant with the text already in http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6967#section-3.  

Cheers,
Med

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : Int-area [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Ted Lemon
>Envoyé : jeudi 5 juin 2014 23:27
>À : Brian E Carpenter
>Cc : [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Stephen Farrell
>Objet : Re: [Int-area] [ietf-privacy] NAT Reveal / Host Identifiers
>
>On Jun 5, 2014, at 4:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>
>wrote:
>> I have to call you on that. WG adoption is not approval. It's agreement
>> to work on a topic. It is not OK to attempt a pocket veto on adoption
>> because you don't like the existing content.
>
>WG adoption is a pretty heavy action.   It states that the WG has consensus
>to work on the document, and weighs heavily in the consensus evaluation
>during WGLC.   If there are problems with the document, part of the
>adoption process should be the identification of those flaws and an
>agreement to address them.   So bringing up those flaws during the adoption
>process is crucial to the process.
>
>It's also worth noting that the INTAREA working group is a special working
>group, with an extremely broad charter, which is moderated by the fact that
>in order for work to be done by the working group, the Internet Area ADs
>have to approve the work.
>
>So needless to say I at least am watching keenly to see if Stephen's
>objections are being addressed, and likely won't approve the adoption of
>the work if they aren't.
>
>_______________________________________________
>Int-area mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area