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

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

Return-path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IbVQK-0007a2-7a; Sat, 29 Sep 2007 02:03:32 -0400
Received: from tcpm by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IbVQI-0007O3-Dz for tcpm-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Sep 2007 02:03:30 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IbVQH-000754-GV for tcpm@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Sep 2007 02:03:29 -0400
Received: from vapor.isi.edu ([128.9.64.64]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IbVQE-0000y7-Ul for tcpm@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Sep 2007 02:03:27 -0400
Received: from [192.168.1.39] (pool-71-106-89-188.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net [71.106.89.188]) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l8T62ra8018919; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 23:02:53 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <46FDEA84.7040806@isi.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 23:02:44 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mallman@icir.org
Subject: Re: [tcpm] tcpsecure: how strong to recommend?
References: <20070929002353.E84E02AA66C@lawyers.icir.org>
In-Reply-To: <20070929002353.E84E02AA66C@lawyers.icir.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.3
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: f4c2cf0bccc868e4cc88dace71fb3f44
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org, "Anantha Ramaiah \(ananth\)" <ananth@cisco.com>
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1432137974=="
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org


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.

Joe

_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm