Re: ESP revisions straw poll

["Steven M. Bellovin" <[e-mail]>]

I'm inclined to write a draft defining a null encryption transform...

At 11:20 AM 5/20/97 -0400, Stephen Kent wrote:
>Perry,
>
>	I now have new appreciation for what Ran and Paul have endured as
>co-chairs for this group.   In initiating this straw poll, I clear did a
>bad job, e.g., by not following the lead that Ran established in the ones
>that he administered.  For example, I failed to establish the duration over
>whioch the poll would be conducted, and I failed to mention that private
>"votes" (ones not sent to the list) would be counted, etc.  Mea culpa; I
>was too informal in trying to conduct this informal poll
>
>	So, let's assume the end of this week is the closing date, thus
>having about a two-week interval for votes.  Also, private votes count too.
>I criticized Ran privately for this practice in the past, and now I
>understand his rationale, i.e., I have received a few votes in favor of
>encryptionless ESP that were not made public because of fear of getting
>pilloried on this list.  It's unfortunate that we have a deserved
>reputation for such animosity on this list.
>
>	Meanwhile, I'll try to generate a message that I thibnk captures
>the major points, pro and con, over this issue, in an effort to clarify the
>discussion, as I have also received some messages indicating some
>confusion.  Given all of the traffic, and the length of some of the
>messages, such confusion is to be expected.
>
>Steve
>
>
>