Re: Concerns

[Rich Skrenta <[e-mail]>]

> This is not what I saw.  I saw only a handful voting for SKIP, a few
> more for ISAKMP/Oakley, and the vast majority with their hands down.

This is remarkable, since there wasn't a vote on SKIP vs. ISAKMP
at the Montreal meeting.

The only time there has been a vote on whether ISAKMP had consensus
by itself was in March at LA, and I saw four hands go up for it then.

> This is also true.  Most of the people didn't raise their hand for
> anything.

That's not the way I remember it...

John Gimore posted his recollections of the votes some time ago.  The only
conclusion which can be drawn from them is that there wasn't consensus on
any issue, except whether a small group of people with nothing to do with
either protocol should pick a winner -- no one thought that was a good
idea.

Here again is what John wrote about the votes:

> Jeff Schiller's closing discussions in the second meeting included
> these "straw poll" questions, with my rough estimations of the
> audience reaction.  He said he deliberately structured the questions
> to avoid a straw-poll on particular algorithms, but instead focused on
> our goals or process.
> 
>   Should we let the marketplace decide on a key managment standard,
>   or should we pick one and move forward?
> 
> 	  Marketplace - 2/5
> 	  Pick one    - 3/5
> 
>   Should we favor generality, or simplicity?
> 
> 	  Generality  - 2/5
> 	  Simplicity  - 3/5
> 
>   Do we have to have a plan by the next IETF?
> 
> 	  On this we have consensus -- YES.
> 
>   Should Jeff grab a few of the WG people who are known not to be committed
>   to any proposal, and together decide?
> 
> 	  Strong consensus that this was not the way to go.
> 
> This was when he suggested convening a small group, largely composed of
> the authors/proponents of existing proposals, to try to hammer out a
> compromise proposal.  He also said that if this group didn't come up with
> anything by September, Jeff would personally choose one as the standard,
> though he did not want to be forced to do that.