[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-icmpv6-filtering-recs to informational
On 14-jun-2006, at 0:48, Fred Baker wrote:
Let's see. How long have you had to review this, and when did the
WGLC close? Remind me?
I didn't read the document until a week ago or so when Pekka linked
to it on the IETF list and asked for comments.
There will not be an IETF Last Call, as this is an informational
document. If there were, I would encourage you to make the comment
in response to the IETF last call. If the ADs send the document
back for a new I-D for some reason, I will expect the authors to
respond to this. I'm not going to hold it up for this, though. The
document makes rather a point that there is significant value to
ICMP filtering, so I can't imagine the comment really being
interpreted as a reason to not filter.
No, why would we point out to people that our protocols are clever
enough to not require any filtering? Or use the same name for the
same field in different documents? That's way too much trouble with
all those RFCs we have to write that no one in operations reads
anyway because they're too long and too hard to read, and which are
too hard to find out that they exist in the first place.
The fact that you talked about TTL=1 while claiming to have reviewed
the document proves several of these points. Refusal to make changes
proves a few more.
I know running a standards organization based 90% on volunteer effort
is hard, but producing sub-par documents is not part of the solution.
The IETF seems fundamentally incapable of doing things fast, so
getting things right is all the more important.
Last but not least: is "don't bother reviewing documents as we're
going to ignore feedback" really the message you want to send? As
soon as someone pays me to do IETF work I promise I'll get in my
comments before last calls expire. Until that time, other work will
have to take precedence.