Re: [tcpm] Feedback request on draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-security

Fernando Gont <> Tue, 02 March 2010 01:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC2BC3A8C01; Mon, 1 Mar 2010 17:58:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l2BzcWQ2f5Qf; Mon, 1 Mar 2010 17:58:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8534D3A7038; Mon, 1 Mar 2010 17:58:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F81A6B6839; Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:58:29 -0300 (ART)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o221wMML025910; Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:58:22 -0300
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 22:58:24 -0300
From: Fernando Gont <>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lars Eggert <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
OpenPGP: id=D076FFF1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 ( []); Mon, 01 Mar 2010 22:58:29 -0300 (ART)
Cc:, " WG" <>, The IESG <>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Feedback request on draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-security
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 01:58:27 -0000

Lars Eggert wrote:

> More importantly, you claim that some group of people has "redefined"
> the WG consensus. This is a serious accusation against the chairs and
> me as AD. Please provide specific details or retract this accusation.


I had made this comment a month ago or so, and at the time I preferred
not to answer you "provide details" request, in the hope of looking
forward. However, given that this has been raised again, I'll respond
this time:

Earlier this year this working group was specifically polled about
adopting draft-gont-tcp-security as a WG item. The WG had unprecedented
strong consensus in this respect (with people even offering to spend
cycles on document review), and this consensus was even noted in the
slides the wg chairs used in the TCPM meeting at IETF 75 (see:

At the meeting, you (IIRC) raised the question about whether we wanted
to work on this document, or start with a new one (!). -- basically
throwing out of the window the 2-year effort of writing the CPNI TCP
security assessment on which draft-ietf-tcp-security is based.

IMO, that's part of obstructing, and/or "not invented here" (NIH) syndrome.

FWIW, It's interesting to note that IAB's Gregory Lebovitz was there at
the TCPM meeting, and commented that "WGs don’t need drafts to 100%
right to become WG items". (and, btw, only two or three people at that
meeting said that they had actually read the document.)

After the meeting, you argued (off-list) that wg consensus (allegedly as
a result of IETF 75??!) was to submit a "fresh" (i.e., blank/brand-new)
document, when we already had consensus *before* the meeting, on the
*mailing-list* (as the IETF mandates it should be) for adopting
draft-gont-tcp-security. You even suggested that tcpm should assemble "a
team of editors" (when you should have probably made this observation
for the non-progressing tcp-ao, rather than for this newly adopted I-D).

Last, but not least, anybody interested in the meeting I'm referring to
are advised to listen to the meeting recordings, rather than reading the
tcpm meeting minutes.

Another instance (but this one older, and in tsvwg):
I could also mention that when tsvwg was polled years ago (you were
co-chair of that wg at the time) about adopting
draft-larsen-port-randomization (now draft-ietf-port-randomization) as a
wg item, at some point something like 5+ people were supporting the
adoption of the document as a tsvwg item (targeting *std* track)... but
you mentioned that that didn't represent wg consensus.
Then the voice of three people (yours included) changed the target from
Std track to BCP. (And no... I'm not arguing that std track was more
correct than bcp. I'm just arguing that the process, and your view of
"consensus", are not clear to me).

Fernando Gont
e-mail: ||
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1