Re: [tcpm] TCPM and draft-ietf-tcpm-icmp-attacks

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Joe Touch wrote:

>>> Yes, please do note it. "proposed" doesn't mean recommended.
>> Are you serious? Do I really have to go through the mailing-list archive
>> to provide you with a list of all those times in which you trashed the
>> doc for the instances of terms such as "proposed", "propose", etc.?
> 
> There is a difference between "there are mechanisms [that are] proposed"
> and "this document proposes".

Don't both of them imply the same thing????!??? :-)



> The text in AO was unchanged since the -00 version (Nov 2007). You
> waited until after last call to complain about adding specific calls for
> ICMP actions. 

Look at this:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm/current/msg04593.html

Is June 16th, 2009 what you call last-minute???????



> If you want to now complain that we remove the word
> "proposed" (would you prefer 'described'), I can do that rev.

No, Joe. That's the game *you* like to play, not me. As far as I'm
concerned, you can leave the text "as is".



>> Last, but not least, I made exactly the same comments (wrt TCP-AO and
>> ICMP attacks) ages ago (way before LC)... but you simply ignored my
>> comments, as other people has claimed you ignored theirs' when editing
>> the TCP-AO I-D.
> 
> I didn't ignore the comments - they didn't have "rough consensus". Not
> every proposed change by an individual necessarily makes it into a doc -
> you and I both know that.

I could give a long response here... but I have had enough. Anybody that
hsa participated in tcpm since its creation can probably guess a (or
craft their own ;-) ) response to this comment.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [e-mail] || [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1