Re: [sidr] WGLC for draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-05

With all due respect, Sandy, what are you smoking?

If there is a dependency that goes "A, then B, then C", then CLEARLY "C"
needs to bake longer than "B", and "B" longer than "A". Maybe not strictly
relative elapsed time, but certainly there would need to be a post-A
significant time before "B" finishes. Ditto for B->C.

In most cases, effort on C and B is likely to be potentially wasted prior
to A, and worse, it leads to work on "C" and "B" resulting in wrong-headed
decisions concerning "A", precisely *because* of the work on "B" and "C"
would otherwise be wasted.

The history of tech is littered with (frequently DOD subcontractors')
wasted efforts that end up bloating projects or putting them into dead-end
paths. ADA, anyone?

Let's look at the reality, rather than the theory, when evaluating
documents' progress and status, please. Especially when one is "chair" of a
WG.

I don't think putting any sort of time pressure is appropriate when we are
talking about a critical infrastructure security protocol.

Brian

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Murphy, Sandra <Sandra.Murphy@sparta.com>wrote:

> The protocol, threats and requirements documents are definitely tied
> together and will progress together.  The three documents have been in the
> working group for the same length of time, so you'd think that they, being
> so tied, would have had equal attention and be equally mature.
>
> On the non-process, reality side of things:  The newest protocol draft
> came out on 7 Sep and I asked the working group to "look at this draft
> right away" because it would be discussed at the interim meeting.  After
> eight days with no comments, a wglc seemed a good idea.  Sad that our lives
> need a wglc to produce participation, but it is what it is.
>
> --Sandy
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> sidr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
>