IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Anantha Ramaiah \(ananth\)" <ananth@cisco.com> Fri, 28 September 2007 23:55 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 1IbPgV-0008JM-0K; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:55:51 -0400
Received: from tcpm by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IbPgS-0008G2-S6 for tcpm-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:55:48 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IbPgS-0008Fu-HE for tcpm@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:55:48 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com ([171.71.176.117]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IbPgS-0003G6-51 for tcpm@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:55:48 -0400
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,211,1188802800"; d="scan'208";a="227326629"
Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Sep 2007 16:55:47 -0700
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l8SNtlTD030837; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 16:55:47 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l8SNtlDL011335; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 23:55:47 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.176]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 28 Sep 2007 16:55:46 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [tcpm] tcpsecure: how strong to recommend?
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 16:55:42 -0700
Message-ID: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC580409FCB3@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <20070928192001.4CE632AA30F@lawyers.icir.org>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] tcpsecure: how strong to recommend?
Thread-Index: AcgCBMneMjsU6zfoS0OtLET4Dirt8wAIqJwg
From: "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com>
To: mallman@icir.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Sep 2007 23:55:46.0949 (UTC) FILETIME=[16CDBB50:01C8022B]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1296; t=1191023747; x=1191887747; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=ananth@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Anantha=20Ramaiah=20\(ananth\)=22=20<ananth@cisco.com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[tcpm]=20tcpsecure=3A=20how=20strong=20to=20recommend ?=20 |Sender:=20; bh=tVkRADVhy1HhNBk61xDSkDR/+lInfwSz1FLKxA/V3ZY=; b=cb+rvg37tDVHwO7mJVgDd6l6LOUdzi4BgoasENut6UUI53t0yGPYh4qZCfOQ1IdT38aRJ4FO RkX7xgjQEwLkLhz47BJJloMGALJQXkq0nYuxKYl3u4nJmEoSOWwdU9ZbV2TL4IX2la63clt5Rx 65fJsSMK6AieAfl0nQhpLimCQ=;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=ananth@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d
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
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>
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.

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" ? 

-Anantha


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email