On Monday, May 23, 2016, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
With the disclaimer that I'm not a security
engineer and that I understand
only parts of this proposal, in general this strikes me as a good idea. It
seems to me that trying to develop a comprehensive list of what tools /
scripts this proposal would likely break, how important those breaks are,
and who could fix them and when, would help with developing a roadmap
toward implementing this proposal with appropriate mitigation and
communication.
At this stage, im just not sure. Its certainly going to be a lot and its
going to especially hit the older scripts hard. (As far as tools - if you
mean tool labs, i dont expect that to be affected). We would have a better
handle of what will be affected once the report-only mode is implemented,
which would allow us to get a list of everything that will break.
That said, should the rfc get approved, i would definitely put together a
list of common examples/patterns that would break.
Keep in mind also, we dont have to do this all at once - if there is some
wiki which seems like it is going to be less affected then others, we can
do them first.
It seems to me that this is the kind of project for
which product
community
liasons are well suited to help with developing and
implementing a rollout
plan. Is there any chance of getting a CL to help with this project?
Hmm. I have no idea. That's something I will have to discuss with them.
--
Bawolff