Re: [tcpm] poll for adopting draft-gont-tcp-security

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Lloyd Wood wrote:
> 
>>> OK, this is the sort of argument that holds no water. Convince us that
>> something is useful and correct. Pleaase cease claiming that
>> implementations define standards.
> 
> It's rough consensus and running code, Joe.

It's rough consensus AND running code, Lloyd.

Running code isn't enough. Lots of running code doesn't define consensus.

>> If you care that much about the implementations,
>> then change them. It'd be more productive than simply documenting what
>> has been implemented instead.
> 
> Implementation experience is an important input to developing and
> refining an IETF standard.
> 
> The IETF standard can't be defined wholly on paper theoretically de
> jure, or wholly
> in implementations de facto. There's a meeting in the middle - hence
> consensus and code.

Please review sec 9.1 of the TAO of the IETF. The running code is to
prove that the standards are viable. It's the two together that are
meaningful. I.e., standards AND running code, not running code THEN
standards based on them.

> I know the M in TCP stands for minor, but really - why are we even
> bringing up standards arguments, when an informational doc would suffice?

draft-gont-tcp-security reads like BCP, and recommends changes that
would require it to be standards-track.

Is informational the intended direction? Or BCP? Or changes to standards?

Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkpPrQoACgkQE5f5cImnZrvAmwCfUF5UX/F/714ijJRR86n8ucDW
t7EAnRaLA8vnkl8mNNwsbZ/GOYYZPbaw
=y69D
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----