[secdir] secdir review of draft-resnick-on-consensus

Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu> Thu, 24 October 2013 17:13 UTC

Return-Path: <jhutz@cmu.edu>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96F1D11E81B9; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 10:13:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.74
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.74 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TjTXhrRkqIjm; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 10:12:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp01.srv.cs.cmu.edu (SMTP01.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU [128.2.217.196]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CC6911E81BE; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 10:11:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.2.193.239] (minbar.fac.cs.cmu.edu [128.2.193.239]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp01.srv.cs.cmu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id r9OHAY0F008087 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 24 Oct 2013 13:10:34 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <1382634633.4490.21.camel@minbar.fac.cs.cmu.edu>
From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu>
To: iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org, draft-resnick-on-consensus.all@tools.ietf.org
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 13:10:33 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3-0ubuntu6
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: mimedefang-cmuscs on 128.2.217.196
Cc: jhutz@cmu.edu
Subject: [secdir] secdir review of draft-resnick-on-consensus
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 17:13:01 -0000

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's 
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the 
IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the 
security area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat 
these comments just like any other last call comments.

This is an Informational document which, to quote the abstract, examines
"what rough consensus is, how we have gotten away from it, and the
things we can do in order to really achieve rough consensus."

It's an excellent treatment of that issue, and one I look forward to
being able to cite as a reference when trying to explain to people what
rough consensus is and what it is not.  Like Pete, I've noticed a
growing trend toward voting and things that smell like voting, with
sometimes unfortunate results.  Hopefully this will prove an effective
tool in opposing that trend.


Publish this, please.

-- Jeff