Re: IPsec Minutes from Montreal

[Ashar Aziz <[e-mail]>]

> and an updated set of minutes reflecting your clarifications have been
> prepared (last week actually).

No doubt.

Paul, if you recall I also complained about the minutes you published 
for the Dec '95, San Jose meeting, where you said that "SKIP was 
designed to solve a specific multicast problem". That was how you 
characterized my presentation, and I thought it a somewhat slanted 
view of my presentation and protocol. I complained privately to
you then. That was over a year and a half ago, and I never saw 
revised minutes.

Now, it is entirely possible that this time revised minutes were going
to be published, but you didn't acknowledge receipt of my message, and
it's a coincidence that they came out just after I made my comments
public.

> >First, the SKIP PFS exchange requires 2 messages, not 4-6.  
> >This is what I presented at the talk, and is present in 
> >the SKIP PFS I-D.  
>
> It is true that your presentation claimed that SKIP PFS exchange takes 2 
> messages.  It is also true that other members of the working group claim that 
> SKIP PFS takes 4 to 6 messages.  So depending on who you ask the answer is 2 
> to 6 messages.  

The meeting minutes should reflect what transpired at the meeting.
They should not be a place where differences of opinion on the
protocols are somehow reconciled.

> I am sure that this confusion will be resolved by the working 
> group, but it is difficult to document in the minutes this type of difference 
> in opinion. 

If the difference of opinion is voiced at the meeting, it is
fair to mention it. It is unfair to take someone else's views
on my protocol, and publish it as "minutes" of my presentation
when they don't correspond to my presentation or to what happened 
at the meeting.

Ashar.