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

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Tue, 07 September 2010 20:53 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: smartpowerdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: smartpowerdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0500D3A6A3F for <smartpowerdir@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Sep 2010 13:53:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.226
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.226 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.373, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yuCiXlwo8o-K for <smartpowerdir@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Sep 2010 13:53:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 101353A6966 for <smartpowerdir@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Sep 2010 13:53:10 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-6.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAL5DhkyrRN+J/2dsb2JhbAChCHGlaps9hT0EhEGFVw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.56,330,1280707200"; d="scan'208";a="585033785"
Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.223.137]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Sep 2010 20:53:37 +0000
Received: from Freds-Computer.local (tky-vpn-client-230-171.cisco.com [10.70.230.171]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o87KrTxd021832; Tue, 7 Sep 2010 20:53:32 GMT
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by Freds-Computer.local (PGP Universal service); Wed, 08 Sep 2010 05:53:37 +0900
X-PGP-Universal: processed; by Freds-Computer.local on Wed, 08 Sep 2010 05:53:37 +0900
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <tsl4oe1b8zw.fsf@live.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 05:53:22 +0900
Message-Id: <F02B2B11-575A-4B90-86B4-479693A1E0AB@cisco.com>
References: <OF6D0B1BEA.3EA9D2EA-ON85257797.005E3015-85257797.005FA391@aep.com> <4D0E5B98-4E90-4523-9DFE-A4072782443F@cisco.com> <tsl4oe1b8zw.fsf@live.mit.edu>
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans@painless-security.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: IETF SmartPower Directorate <smartpowerdir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [smartpowerdir] Fwd: CSWG Architecture review task for PAP01
X-BeenThere: smartpowerdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Members of the Smart Power Directorate <smartpowerdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smartpowerdir>, <mailto:smartpowerdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/smartpowerdir>
List-Post: <mailto:smartpowerdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:smartpowerdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smartpowerdir>, <mailto:smartpowerdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 20:53:12 -0000

On Sep 8, 2010, at 5:21 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:

>>>>>> "Fred" == Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> 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
> methodology.
> 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.

Thanks.