[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> >I say that we simply behave like engineers and design the best system
> >we can, and leave it to the governments to cripple their own countries
> >by making it impossible for their citizenry to join the internet, or
> >by leaving their citizens open to massive fraud and invasion of
> >privacy. I will not lend my support to a consensus for anything less
> >than the best system I know how to design, and I suspect that others
> >feel the same way.
> I see no consensus that you keep saying with phrases like "I suspect
> that others feel the same way". I do see one hand clapping.
OK, Jim, here's agreement with Perry. I feel the same way. I didn't
realise that any more than one person needed to say it.
Oh, and I saw a message from Ted Ts'o saying the same. Multiple hands
> I with Dan and others will object at last call to that wording in the
> document if it is to go to proposed standards before Danvers MA. Done!,
> and as far as I am concerned there is no consensus to support your views
> technically on any of the security subjects discussed in this rather
> extensive mail exchange. You have a view and others have a different
> view. Your not winning the debate your just sending a lot of mail.
Perry is more attentive to replying to email than I am, particularly
when I'm writing code, so he has a tendency to be the frontrunner.
But you can rest assured, Mr Bound, that textual diarrhea is not one of
Perry's problems. It is certain "opponents" that have spammed multiple
lists, not Perry.
The IPv6 Security formats have been completed for some time. They do
not include key management.
He and I and other have asked that IPv4 technical discourse, such as key
management, continue on the IPSec list.
Seems to me to be the pot calling the kettle black.