Re: [stir] Setting Direction for the STIR WG Last Call

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Sun, 21 August 2016 16:27 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: stir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: stir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86FA712D7B2 for <stir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Aug 2016 09:27:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_BL=0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_L5=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dcrocker.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7qZk5aFpDA4Y for <stir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Aug 2016 09:27:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (unknown [72.52.113.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C39D312D7A9 for <stir@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Aug 2016 09:27:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.168] (76-218-8-128.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.128]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id u7LGRld2025953 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 21 Aug 2016 09:27:47 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=default; t=1471796867; bh=b+LDkwKnj+/b9saQf9XHMAcgTP450WvwAnjqxOe2xBQ=; h=From:Subject:To:References:Cc:Reply-To:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=iRitsMox9mern+q6ABgEfd4tbvVEDf9Z5l0Z6bGry0fX40akedut27lPZCmMKSjGZ 4kY6BQYuyuALGpWlZl8yT2mWFz/tDS7GTeC5+/KbucEXG8qi31o4X8yZD3DOJDPchD zLE0ZZmS4Tcxa0wtFs7hYduJOQNFM0wc8KEDAs00=
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
References: <07e0eb16-6758-cdf1-c571-1f1ed768e741@dcrocker.net> <D9E1B04E-EE62-44AD-B98E-05A264FD044C@vigilsec.com> <366a7ee0-cce7-4bed-951c-05415676dd91@bbiw.net> <3769C5C0-4C08-4DA2-A1BF-2D3C91743750@vigilsec.com>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <97855867-104b-7357-d0b0-e90c2b5cd22e@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2016 09:27:21 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3769C5C0-4C08-4DA2-A1BF-2D3C91743750@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stir/t2adiGn9fgCC2eNLmOrQc-9spis>
Cc: IETF STIR Mail List <stir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [stir] Setting Direction for the STIR WG Last Call
X-BeenThere: stir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: Secure Telephone Identity Revisited <stir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/stir>, <mailto:stir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/stir/>
List-Post: <mailto:stir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir>, <mailto:stir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2016 16:27:39 -0000

On 8/21/2016 8:26 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
> Your quote dropped a lot of context.  I said:

Yes, quite intentionally, so that the focus would be on what I was 
choosing to respond to.


> If there is a technical problem, let’s identify it and fix it.  If
  > there is a lack of clarity, let’s fix that too.

1. You tasked detailed attention to my reviews as a background (behind 
the scenes) task for the editors.

2. You imposed an additional task on me, as I said.


>          However, WG Last
> Call is not the time to revisit each decision that brought the WG to
> this point.

I responded to exactly this point.  I'm not clear what the point of your 
repeating your original statement is, particularly since you seem not to 
be responding to the specifics of my note.

d/
-- 

    Dave Crocker
    Brandenburg InternetWorking
    bbiw.net