[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
A proposal
>There has been consensus on PFS for over a year, at least. There has
>been general agreement on out-of-band keying for longer than that. This
>doesn't preclude expanding the points of consensus, of course.
That may very well be, but I think it would still be a good idea to know
what that list is, and have everything in one place. The semi-anecdotal
messages saying "well, there seems to be agreement on XXX" that we see a lot
in this group (especially when it's feature XXX vs YYY, and when at that
moment the tide is turning towards YYY) does not speak well for this WG
effort. Moreover, even if we come to a directional agreement on a feature,
then people squabble over the details--to take PFS as an example, we
recently had a fight about whose PFS is "perfect" enough. Not only do I not
recall a resolution to that debate--it just seemed to die out after a
while--but that really isn't the issue. What is the issue is that at this
late date in the process, we're still trying to do such basic things as
level setting on overall goals! Given that, I am concerned that we will not
make progress in anything resembling the kind of timeframe needed to address
immediate market requirements if we continue with the current way of doing
things.
>There's a contingent that would like to see an inclusive solution -- a
>contingent that believes it's easier to code than argue, that we can
>have it all for little additional cost.
IMHO, there has been a lot of people, on all sides, who have contributed to
the gridlock we're experiencing. I would like to make it clear that Hilarie
is NOT one of them--she has been one of the people whom I genuinely believe
has made a concerted and good-faith effort to accomodate the strengths of
the two approaches. Unfortunately, she is only one woman.
I would personally love to see a single solution, but at this point, this is
not likely to happen if we continue on the same course: the current process
has gotten too politicized, too personal (between both individuals and
companies), too many people who are supposed to be neutral and objective are
often not, market events have overtaken us, and just generally, the process
has broken down. There is more than enough blame to go around, but let's not
kind ourselves that things are working as they should.
So, here is my proposal:
I would recommend that we make one last good faith attempt to merge the
proposals prior to the December IETF. From what I understand, the last
attempt started off as a small group which got larger and more contentious
as time went on. Since too many cooks spoil the soup, I recommend that Ashar
and Hilarie sit down *alone* and see what they can come up with (SKIP/Oakley
:-) ). I have faith that in such an environment, much of the politics, etc.
can be set aside and perhaps we might end up with a proposal based on the
best aspects of both systems. Frankly, if the two of them cannot pound
something out, then IMHO it will never happen within the larger group, in
which case, we should let both proposals move ahead.
-John