IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org> Fri, 28 September 2007 19:21 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 1IbLOq-0007BL-Qp; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:21:20 -0400
Received: from tcpm by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IbLOp-00079q-AC for tcpm-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:21:19 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IbLOo-00079b-VO for tcpm@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:21:19 -0400
Received: from pork.icsi.berkeley.edu ([192.150.186.19]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IbLOo-0001Mf-JD for tcpm@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:21:18 -0400
Received: from guns.icir.org (adsl-69-222-35-58.dsl.bcvloh.ameritech.net [69.222.35.58]) by pork.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l8SJLFsH028275; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:21:15 -0700
Received: from lawyers.icir.org (adsl-69-222-35-58.dsl.bcvloh.ameritech.net [69.222.35.58]) by guns.icir.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C28E5FFF8F6; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:21:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lawyers.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lawyers.icir.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CE632AA30F; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:20:01 -0400 (EDT)
To: "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com>
From: Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] tcpsecure: how strong to recommend?
In-Reply-To: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC580409FB2B@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
Organization: ICSI Center for Internet Research (ICIR)
Song-of-the-Day: Car Phone
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:20:01 -0400
Message-Id: <20070928192001.4CE632AA30F@lawyers.icir.org>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 52e1467c2184c31006318542db5614d5
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org, David Borman <david.borman@windriver.com>, Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: mallman@icir.org
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="===============1452938898=="
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

> > I have to say I am pretty drained from reading this thread 
> > and really don't know if we have consensus on anything or are 
> > driving towards developing it.
> 
> FWIW, the "majority vote" still stands at "2 SHOULDs and 1 MAY" ? So
> there is some consensus, it appears.

Well... we don't work on "majority vote".  We work on consensus.  Ted
and I chatted a bit ago and I think it seems pretty clear to us that we
have no consensus on this issue.  15 people 'voted' in the meeting and a
few more people have voiced opinions on the list and even if one option
is 'winning' it certainly isn't doing so with something we are
comfortable calling even 'rough consensus' right now.  People can of
course argue that we're wrong.

allman




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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email