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

Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org> Sat, 29 September 2007 00:25 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 1IbQ8x-0003ca-37; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:25:15 -0400
Received: from tcpm by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IbQ8v-0003aZ-66 for tcpm-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:25:13 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IbQ8u-0003aR-RW for tcpm@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:25:12 -0400
Received: from pork.icsi.berkeley.edu ([192.150.186.19]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IbQ8u-0003mc-Ci for tcpm@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:25:12 -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 l8T0PBf0003682; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:25:11 -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 4786A1001762; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:25:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lawyers.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lawyers.icir.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E84E02AA66C; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:23:53 -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: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC580409FCB3@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 20:23:53 -0400
Message-Id: <20070929002353.E84E02AA66C@lawyers.icir.org>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
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="===============1205230343=="
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

> 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.

allman



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