Re: [smartpowerdir] Fwd: CSWG Architecture review task for PAP01

Sam Hartman <> Tue, 07 September 2010 20:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4226F3A6AB1 for <>; Tue, 7 Sep 2010 13:20:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.253
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.253 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.012, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yP+ryFnMnjlh for <>; Tue, 7 Sep 2010 13:20:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E75B03A6AAA for <>; Tue, 7 Sep 2010 13:20:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "laptop", Issuer "laptop" (not verified)) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5717207B7; Tue, 7 Sep 2010 16:21:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 16FFE4761; Tue, 7 Sep 2010 16:21:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sam Hartman <>
To: Fred Baker <>
References: <> <>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 16:21:07 -0400
In-Reply-To: <> (Fred Baker's message of "Wed, 8 Sep 2010 03:36:28 +0900")
Message-ID: <>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110009 (No Gnus v0.9) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: IETF SmartPower Directorate <>
Subject: Re: [smartpowerdir] Fwd: CSWG Architecture review task for PAP01
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Members of the Smart Power Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 20:20:53 -0000

>>>>> "Fred" == Fred Baker <> writes:

    Fred> Somebody care to tell me how best to incorporate this comment
    Fred> into draft-baker-ietf-core?

I don't think it's the IETF's place to recommend a system engineering
As best I read the comment he's saying either:

1) What you say about security technologies is fine

2) You should say nothing about security technologies

and then he's arguing what process you should recommend.

We as a subset of the IETF should only say things that are in the IETF's
scope.  I'd read this comment as a commen that you seem to have
succeeded in doing what you set out to do but that he wishes you had
chosen to do something different.  You probably don't want to make that
change in direction, so I'd indicate you've considered the comment but
disagree that sort of direction shift would be appropriate for something
coming from the IETF.