[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (IPng) The best
>> 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.
I think consensus has to be more than 3 people in a working group.
>> 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.
Oh I don't agree and I have the mail archives from this discourse.
>The IPv6 Security formats have been completed for some time. They do
>not include key management.
No and no one "at this point" is arguing they should per the discussion
on the mail list. The debate now is the wording around in-band key
>He and I and other have asked that IPv4 technical discourse, such as key
>management, continue on the IPSec list.
I think we that are concerned are now on IPsec and I am just responding.
to the To: and cc: lines.
>Seems to me to be the pot calling the kettle black.
Not really on this one Bill. Face it, the wording as is about key
management is enough to raise a very big issue to the IESG and I intend
to do so if it comes across my mail inbox for last call. The only
reason I am responding now is because you and Perry have been responding
to me. I will be glad to get out of the loop because my mind is made
up, unless I see a change in wording. It will be for the IESG to decide
and not the working group I guess.