Re: [tcpm] tcpsecure: how strong to recommend?

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Sat, 29 September 2007 06:03 UTC

Return-path: <>
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IbVQK-0007a2-7a; Sat, 29 Sep 2007 02:03:32 -0400
Received: from tcpm by with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IbVQI-0007O3-Dz for; Sat, 29 Sep 2007 02:03:30 -0400
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IbVQH-000754-GV for; Sat, 29 Sep 2007 02:03:29 -0400
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IbVQE-0000y7-Ul for; Sat, 29 Sep 2007 02:03:27 -0400
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l8T62ra8018919; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 23:02:53 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 23:02:44 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [tcpm] tcpsecure: how strong to recommend?
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.3
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: f4c2cf0bccc868e4cc88dace71fb3f44
Cc:, "Anantha Ramaiah \(ananth\)" <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1432137974=="

Mark Allman wrote:
>> In the last meeting in Chicago, it was pointed out the only pending
>> issue is the "strength of the mitigations". 3 choices were listed,
>> people picked the choices ( Careful not to use the "vote" since you
>> don't seem to like it :-), So I would think the next step is to pick
>> on whichever choice comes up as popular and move on. I for one don't
>> see anything wrong with that approach.
>> Atleast I am missing as to what would constitute a "rough consensus" ?
> First, it isn't me that doesn't like the word "vote".  It is the IETF
> that doesn't take "votes".  Taking "votes" is problematic.  Take a look
> at some of the IETF process documents, the Tao of the IETF, etc.  These
> explain why there are not votes within the IETF and the rationale behind
> the consensus process.
> It seems to me that in this case it is clear that the WG is not
> generally of one mind (i.e., come to consensus), with a non-trivial
> number of folks wanting MAYs, SHOULDs and and/or some combination (via
> picking some MAYs and some SHOULDs or using conditionals or whatever).
> If you can show us that we're reading this wrong and that in fact these
> folks are outliers then please do.

FWIW, there is a separate concern - current positions represent a very
small set of participants. We are talking about modifications to 793 -
whether MAY or SHOULD - and those should not be taken on the consensus
of such a small sample as is currently weighing in.


tcpm mailing list