Re: IPsec Minutes from Montreal

Fri, 20 September 1996 11:59 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa24728; 20 Sep 96 7:59 EDT
Received: from neptune.hq.tis.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07618; 20 Sep 96 7:59 EDT
Received: from neptune.tis.com by neptune.TIS.COM id aa21486; 20 Sep 96 7:31 EDT
Subject: Re: IPsec Minutes from Montreal
To: ipsec@tis.com
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 14:59:46 -0700
In-Reply-To: <9609191751.AA18970@dcl.MIT.EDU> from "Theodore Y. Ts'o" at Sep
Message-ID: <150853350997.30702.14309070239661120624.ARCHIVE@ietfa.amsl.com>

19, 96 01:51:59 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 PGP5]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ipsec-approval@neptune.tis.com
Precedence: bulk
From: ipsec-approval@neptune.tis.com
Message-ID:  <9609200726.aa21481@neptune.TIS.COM>

> Well, the problem is that any time the minutes say anything good or bad
> about either protocol, people are going to claim that the minutes aren't
> "fair".

The problem is that the minutes don't describe what happened at the
meeting, which is what they're supposed to do.  We're more than happy
to debate the merits of our protocol, but minutes should accurately and
fairly records what happens at the meetings -- not provide the chair's
opinions.

The minutes are not a forum where differences of opinion are somehow
resolved.  They're supposed to be an accurate record of what took place
at the meeting.

> According to the ISAKMP camp, saying that SKIP "only" takes 2
> messages is a skewed, slanted view.

If someone had presented that at the meeting, yes, that should be in
the minutes.