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

FWIW, I think we need to address the fundamentals first, as echoed by
Lars, Tim and your truly
some time back. i.e. are we labeling this changes as updates to rfc793 ?
Will we clearly state
(if the document proceeds to  standards track) to state "Updates: 793"
in the title of the document ?

OR

are we looking it as an additional protocol that can be added/embedded
to TCP (although there is no handshake to signal this understanding
between the TCP peers to distinctly picture this as an option,
but a small protocol nevertheless) and does not necessarily update the
base spec ? 

Once we hash this out, we can start the may/should/must nomenclature
consensus drive.

I may be the only voice that is unclear on this, but atleast we get to
hear how folks perceive this.

Mitesh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Allman [mailto:mallman@icir.org] 
> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 5:24 PM
> To: Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
> Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [tcpm] tcpsecure: how strong to recommend? 
> 
> 
> > 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