Re: [tsvwg] 3rd WGLC (limited-scope): draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-15, closes 29 June 2020

["Rodney W. Grimes" <[e-mail]>]

> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 1:58 PM Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > I have opinions about this draft that I've been pretty vocal about to the
> > working group during the past couple of years and in the first two WGLCs,
> > but just to follow up on this point:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 2:02 PM Paul Vixie <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wednesday, 10 June 2020 15:45:50 UTC Mike Bishop wrote:
> >>
> >
> > snipped
> >
> >
> >> > On the whole, I think this document could be suitable for publication
> >> as an
> >> > Informational RFC; it provides real-world context for a trade-off that
> >> > every protocol designer needs to consider carefully.  However, I don?t
> >> > believe its current state reflects, in Ekr?s words, ?the IETF
> >> community's
> >> > view of the relative priority of these concerns.?
> >>
> >> the ietf community is incredibly narrow compared to the world it serves.
> >> very
> >> few of the people and companies whose future will be chosen for them by
> >> ietf
> >> work can afford the time or travel it takes to be represented. this may
> >> be an
> >> inconvenient truth, but it is my reason for considering whether this
> >> document
> >> reflects the broader view of the world's digital economy. i think it does.
> >>
> >
> > Keeping in mind that the target is publication as an Informational RFC, I
> > believe the governing BCP definition is still
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-4.2.2, which says
> >
> > 4.2.2  Informational
> >
> >    An "Informational" specification is published for the general
> >    information of the Internet community, and does not represent an
> >    Internet community consensus or recommendation.  The Informational
> >    designation is intended to provide for the timely publication of a
> >    very broad range of responsible informational documents from many
> >    sources, subject only to editorial considerations and to verification
> >    that there has been adequate coordination with the standards process
> >    (see section 4.2.3).
> >
> 
> > Does anyone think that's been updated?
> >
> 
> Indeed it has:
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-halpern-gendispatch-consensusinformational-04
> 
> -Ekr

I have read this draft, and like what it says.  One small nit,
OBE is used all capitals, so I must assume it is an abbreviation,
perhaps Over come By Events?  But I seriously doubt it is the
most common found definition of:

	an award given in the UK for a special achievement;
	a person who has received this award (the abbreviation
	for `Officer of the Order of the British Empire') 

Regards,
Rod Grimes

-- 
Rod Grimes                                                 [e-mail]