Re: [tcpm] tcp-security: Request for feedback on the outline of the document

Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> Thu, 27 August 2009 04:41 UTC

Return-Path: <fernando@gont.com.ar>
X-Original-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D50FD28C124 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 21:41:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.036
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.036 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.563, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 jd2QsPgSH5VY for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 21:41:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1.xmundo.net (smtp1.xmundo.net [201.216.232.80]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FCA03A6A4B for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 21:41:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from venus.xmundo.net (venus.xmundo.net [201.216.232.56]) by smtp1.xmundo.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A84B96B6A22; Thu, 27 Aug 2009 01:41:56 -0300 (ART)
Received: from [192.168.0.136] (129-130-17-190.fibertel.com.ar [190.17.130.129]) (authenticated bits=0) by venus.xmundo.net (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n7R4fa4J008705; Thu, 27 Aug 2009 01:41:36 -0300
Message-ID: <4A960E85.8000608@gont.com.ar>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 01:41:41 -0300
From: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: toby.moncaster@bt.com
References: <4A8CBF98.1070809@gont.com.ar><4A8D939E.9050008@isi.edu> <C304DB494AC0C04C87C6A6E2FF5603DB479B7E7359@NDJSSCC01.ndc.nasa.gov> <4A94307E.2080209@gont.com.ar><4A943CEA.4000905@isi.edu> <4A944A03.1090803@gont.com.ar> <4A944B56.5080200@isi.edu> <AEDCAF87EEC94F49BA92EBDD49854CC70CC81561@E03MVZ1-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
In-Reply-To: <AEDCAF87EEC94F49BA92EBDD49854CC70CC81561@E03MVZ1-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
OpenPGP: id=D076FFF1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (venus.xmundo.net [201.216.232.56]); Thu, 27 Aug 2009 01:41:55 -0300 (ART)
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org, touch@ISI.EDU
Subject: Re: [tcpm] tcp-security: Request for feedback on the outline of the document
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 04:41:49 -0000

Hello, Toby,

> I definitely agree that Joe's structure looks more organised. As he
> points out, it is impossible to create a comprehensive structure that
> removes all overlap or contradictions. If you want this document to
> succeed (rather than join an ever-growing pile of RFCs that no-one
> outside the IETF have even read) then making it easily readable has
> to be the first requirement. A significant part of readability is the
> structure used to present the data in the document. 

Before bringing this document to the IETF, most major vendors (including
Cisco, Juniper, Microsoft, and others) received a copy of it, and had
the chance to review it. Nobody complained about the document
outline/structure. Actually, they were very happy with it. So I'd argue
that *more* people from *outside* the IETF has read the document than
the people that



> It is always hard
> as an author to accept recommendations that seem to alter one's work
> so fundamentally but remember that other people are able to take a
> step back from the detail in a way you, as an author, may not find so
> easy.

A few comments/clarifications with respect to your note:

* My disagreement with the structure proposed by Joe should not be taken
as me "not accepting recommendations". As a wg participant, I guess I
can still have an opinion that differs from that of others'. That
doesn't mean that I won't accept recommendations when they reflect wg
consensus or are obvious improvements to the document.

* The current version of the document was thoroughly reviewed during two
years. Among the reviewers were many implementers, many of which are
listed in the "Acknowledgements" section. *Lots* of changes were made in
response to the feedback I got. Even during the last couple of months
before the official release of the UK CPNI version of it, I added around
15 pages in response to the feedback I received.

* I have always welcomed reviews of the document. For instance, I tried
to get reviews from the people that were likely to object the document
or suggest changes. e.g., I asked Joe myself to review the document
(both this TCP one and the IP counterpart)... even before the first IETF
Internet-Draft version of this document was published. I also asked
Alfred (whose reviews usually lead to lots and lots of changes) to
review the document, and I had to make lots of changes (in the
organization, prose, technical contents, etc.) and even had to add more
than ten pages at the last minute before publication to address
virtually all his comments.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@acm.org
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1