Re: [stir] Review of: draft-ietf-stir-rfc4474bis-10

["Peterson, Jon" <[e-mail]>]

>I'm responding to Jon's fair question of how much support there is for
>implementing the changes proposed by Dave.

Well, I asked that about the changes he proposed to stir-passport, not to
rfc4474bis - the latter hadn't been sent to the list when I posed the
question.

>In summary, I believe that the majority of comments, if accepted, would
>substantially improve the doc.

Also, I posed my question in connection with the set of issues that Dave
had identified as substantial, non-blocking issues with PASSporT, rather
than minor changes that might improve readability or clarify technical
principles. I am not proposing to ignore those. In fact, if you go back to
my initial response to Dave's review of stir-passport:

https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/stir/current/msg02478.html

... I say that many of Dave's suggestions for that document make a lot of
sense to me, and I promise that Chris and I will go through and implement
them where appropriate. I'm sure the same will be true for Dave's review
of rfc4474bis.

But as your point out in your note, other of these comments are not
offered with a mind to improving the document or advancing the work of
STIR. I've long since learned that the price of doing business in an open
standards body is identifying the useful comments that are often buried in
a heap of obstructionism or personal animus. That is what it is  - like I
said, sifting through material like this is part of the cost of doing
Internet standards in an open fashion, and the alternative would lead to
work of lesser quality.

The question I posed about the stir-passport review concerned the more
fundamental reconsiderations of the STIR architecture that Dave is
proposing, and the support or lack thereof for that set of objections
among working group participants. Since Dave refused to identify which of
his issues were blocking, I could only allude to them indirectly.

Jon Peterson
Neustar, Inc.