Re: [perpass] comments and questions for the group on draft-farrell-perpass-attack-02

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Hi Stephen,

I'm not comfortable with having this discussion just in perpass, since
the impact of what you are proposing is quite broad, as is my concern. 
This is an IETF last call comment.  The IESG directed those comments to
go to the IETF list.

On 12/9/13 2:23 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:

>  The chair you mean is Mark
> Nottingham in this [1] mail to the httpbis list.
>
>    [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013OctDec/1453.html
>
> I definitely did not read him the way you appear to have and
> that distinction matters. If you are the only one to take him
> as saying that then I guess you'd agree that your changes
> would be based on a fallacy. Maybe Mark can clarify but I think
> its already crystal clear that he was not saying "ignore
> everything else" - I'd be stunned if that was what he meant.

The point was and is that I wanted to respond to him to clarify that one
should not ignore everything else, when in fact I found the opposite:
since you laid out explicitly only network management considerations,
the implication is that all other considerations are excluded.  The
purpose of my change is to remove that implied exclusion, and leave this
to working groups to wrestle with.  I'm happy with Robin's wording as
well, and I don't mind you proposing other wording further to your
liking, so long as we recognize that there are other considerations.

If you can show me where in your text it allows for those other
considerations as I believe I've done in the reverse, I'll be happy to
stand corrected.

Eliot