Re: [Tsv-art] Architectural implications of EH / filtering (was: draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering)

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

[ Top-post, follow-up to my own mail]

I've had a chat with the rest of the IESG and I'm planning on going through
all of the (230+! ) emails again and classify them into:
A: related to the document itself
B: related to the larger "do intermediate routers have any role in
filtering" / "can devices actually do what it says on the tin" / related.
C:

I'd already done this, but only classified them in my head -- this will be
a large undertaking (and many emails fall into multiple categories) and
will take some time...

Also, a fair bit of the discussion felt like people talking past each other
- we will continue to investigate the information sharing / "recent changes
in protocol X" type sessions.
While looking into this I (re)discovered the "Technical Tutorials" (
https://www.ietf.org/about/participate/tutorials/technical/ ) page, but
what I hadn't known before was the
https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/edu/materials/ and
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/edu/wiki/Tutorial_by_IETF pages.
Many of these are a good way to get quick introduction to a new protocol /
sphere -- eg:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/slides-101-edu-sesse-introduction-to-oauth-20-01.pdf

W


On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 4:54 PM Warren Kumari <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 3:32 AM Ole Troan <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Warren,
>>
>> Thank you for your note.
>>
>> > On 12 Dec 2018, at 00:58, Warren Kumari <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> >
>> > The IETF LC thread on the document, and the TSVART review (and
>> corresponding thread) both generated useful, and actionable comments, and
>> I've asked the authors to go through them carefully and address them --
>> these fall into the "on the document" category. I think that once these
>> have been done, the document itself will be in acceptable shape to proceed
>> (but keep reading!)
>>
>> How do I interpret this? Are you saying you think there is IETF consensus
>> to publish?
>>
>
> Yes, probably.
>
> The discussions **on the draft itself** (and not the larger, philosophical
> discussions on operations vs architecture / what is actually implemented vs
> what routers should be able to do) looks like (after the editor makes the
> agreed to changes) good enough rough consensus for me to progress it to
> IESG evaluation.
>
> It is entirely possible that it will not survive that step / will be sent
> back to the WG / another IETF LC on the revised document will be called for
> / it will be munged beyond recognition at this point...
>
> W
>
>
>> Cheers,
>> Ole
>
>
>
> --
> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea
> in the first place.
> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
> pants.
>    ---maf
>


-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in
the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
pants.
   ---maf