Re: [IPsec] Beginning the PAKE selection process

["Dan Harkins" <[e-mail]>]

  Hi Paul,

On Mon, May 24, 2010 2:50 pm, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> At 2:07 PM -0700 5/24/10, Dan Harkins wrote:
>>  This is out-of-line.
>
> Would it have been less out-of-line if I, the other co-chair wrote it?

  Yes. Yaron has a conflict and because of it you said you were handling
this discussion. If you're not happy with the silence then I'd expect
you to ask the WG to provide some constructive input. I didn't expect
the guy with the conflict to propose, "as a co-chair", elimination of
the work item.

>>  I apologize for the tardiness of my post kicking off discussion on my
>>candidate proposal but I was traveling for the past week-and-a-half and
>>was otherwise indisposed. Hopefully this will start a discussion but if
>>it doesn't then I would expect the same treatment of this work item as
>>that given to EAP-only.
>
> Your candidate proposal (and the other two candidate proposals) do not
> have the same standing as the single EAP-only draft.

  At the time of rechartering they weren't so different though. We had
a discussion on adding two work items and each one had a single individual
submission proposing a way to solve it. One immediately became a WG
document and got the fast track into IETF LC with absolutely no discussion
on the list. The other was put into a process that waited for alternatives
to be written and now requires WG discussion or else it will be eliminated.

  So yea, _now_ the situation is different. But that's because the two
work items were treated so differently from the start. So now I guess
it's the case that we can't treat those two things the same because we're
not treating them the same. Which sort of begs a question.

> It would be grand if the authors of even one of the various proposals
> could get enough independent interest in their proposals to show that we
> can do good work on the charter item.

  I agree!

  Dan.