[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re[2]: AH-MD5
Paul_Lambert-P15452@email.mot.com says:
>
> Ignoring the groups consensus is a big deal.
Thats why we are discussing this, Paul, rather than fiating. I don't
recall either Bill or myself indicating that we would refuse to alter
the document. However, I was unaware that it was forbidden to discuss
the issue. Thats what we are doing.
> Forward progress can only be made by representing the group
> consensus.
No. Forward progress is made by producing good, functioning
implementations of good standards. If you just want to represent the
collective wisdom, we could go to voting, you know -- and perhaps even
adopt the Confucionist ethic of the ISO rather than following the Tao
of the IETF. I'll stick to IETF Taoism myself.
> Much progress was made in San Jose that is being ignored in
> draft-metzger-xxx work.
> These documents are interesting contributions, but are not being
> worked in a consensus building manner.
Lets be very clear here. The documents submitted are based on the IPv6
work, which was essentially what the group adopted in Toronto as our
consensus. They almost fully follow the Toronto decisions concerning
packet types and formats, and the San Jose decisions concerning
security transforms. (The 3DES and DES/3DES/MD5 documents will be
showing up in the next day or two). Thus far, Bill and I (mostly Bill
as editor -- he's holding the master copies) have incorporated every
suggestion that has been made but one -- and that is because that one
is being actively discussed.
I realize that our (one) decision concerning prepending vs. prepending
and appending did not follow wide discussion, but it was well thought
out based on the IPv6 consensus, and as I've said, it is hardly fixed
in stone. No one has said "we will not change the document", only
"please explain your reasoning". If you think that asking questions is
inappropriate, then I do not think you are following the Tao of the
IETF.
As for, "interesting contributions", they aren't "interesting
contributions". They are, so far as I can tell, the current working
documents. I have seen no other working documents in the
internet-drafts directory. I'm implementing as we speak based on these
documents.
My implementation, which is being written for 4.4BSD Unix, will be
given away for free.
Now you've said...
> Forward progress can only be made by representing the group
> consensus.
I think that for forward progress to occur, someone has to actually
have a document in place. We've produced it. If you have suggestions,
please make them so that we can move forward.
Perry
References: