IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [yam] [Fwd: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-03]

John C Klensin <john@jck.com> Thu, 04 March 2010 21:48 UTC

Return-Path: <john@jck.com>
X-Original-To: yam@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: yam@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C5F33A8E4A for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Mar 2010 13:48:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 4DzEjITNZ01M for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Mar 2010 13:48:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1566C3A8710 for <yam@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Mar 2010 13:48:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1NnIuT-000Da7-BY; Thu, 04 Mar 2010 16:48:45 -0500
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 16:48:44 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john@jck.com>
To: barryleiba@computer.org, dcrocker@bbiw.net
Message-ID: <3854E04F02990C833384C4D4@PST.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <6c9fcc2a1003041343y383eb6a4xe0920c7921e59272@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B8E515A.6060608@isode.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20100303221310.0a1f0c70@resistor.net> <4B8F69BF.1010502@dcrocker.net> <6c9fcc2a1003041343y383eb6a4xe0920c7921e59272@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 13:58:20 -0800
Cc: yam@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [yam] [Fwd: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-03]
X-BeenThere: yam@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Yet Another Mail working group discussion list <yam.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam>, <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam>
List-Post: <mailto:yam@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam>, <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 21:48:58 -0000

I concur with Barry.   I fear that the path Steve apparently
wants to go down --as I understand it, to incorporate warnings
in security considerations simply because a mechanism can be
used to transfer bad stuff -- leads to madness.   But I'm happy
to have you discuss it with him to see if you, together, can
find an acceptable basis for moving forward.

     john

--On Thursday, March 04, 2010 16:43 -0500 Barry Leiba
<barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com> wrote:

>> One argument is that he is suggesting non-normative
>> clarifications.  From that standpoint, that seems reasonable
>> to include for yam-related work.
>> 
>> A different argument is that there is, nonetheless, some
>> actual substance to the changes and that that is /not/ within
>> scope for yam.
>> 
>> How does the wg feel about this?
> 
> This WG participant feels great about having you discuss it
> with him, use your judgment, and make a recommendation to the
> WG about what we should do.
> 
> Barry
> _______________________________________________
> yam mailing list
> yam@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email