Rich, I apologize for my objections to your posting. I became a little too irritable when you used my name directly as the reason for the posting. I'll share half the blame for any confusion on this issue. If statements were to be posted, to be fair I would have asked representatives from each of the factions to post positions. It is now too late for position papers. >Received: SEPTEMBER 16, 1996 10:47 >From: Rich Skrenta <rs@wicked.neato.org> >I was quite frankly amazed when you characterized Ashar's technical >and rather dry applicability statement as "marketing material". Rich, please reread my note, it said "misconstrued as marketing material". >Paul >> While I do understand Sun's investment in SKIP, please be cautious in the >> posting of material that might be misconstrued as marketing material. There were complaints made to me on the posting of the "applicability statement". The complaints were based largely on the timing of this re-posting. While technical information on the three key management proposals may be interesting to new members of this mailing list, we are now in a very sensitive period. The decisions on SKIP versus Photuris versus ISAKMP/Oakley are now being made by the Security Area Director and the "secdir". Please note that there have not been postings of the "benefits" of ISAKMP and Photuris. We need to stop beating the drums on our favorite acronym (Photuris, ISAKMP, Oakley, SKIP) and move on as a working group. >> Perhaps, but so many postings on the "benefits" of a proposal could appear >> self serving. > >Why is "benefits" in quotes? The group has been polarized on the comparison of very different proposal bundles. The benefits for one person are not the same as another. I hold to my opinion that numerous postings from any single individual on a single subject detracts from the effectiveness of the e-mail based working group. I do complement the many members who succulently express their opinions (like Phil Karn or Dave Wheeler) and hope that our working group as a whole will learn to communicate more effectively. I consider it self serving when an individual continues to blast a working group with opinions that are already well known. >I am rather upset at being censured in this way by one of the co-chairs. Your one posting was slightly out of line. As co-chair, it is my job to attempt to direct the discussions on this list. I should attempt to pound my virtual gavel more often. >I feel I have acted in good faith to respond to technical discussions on >this list. It does not seem fair that others may point out negatives in >SKIP, but we are admonished when we respond to these points. I only admonished your single posting of old material. When you say "we" it seems that you must be making these complaints and postings in collaboration with others. I hope this not the case (I don't subscribe to alt.conspiracy). The single objection that I made was to you and has no relation to others on the list or any technical ideas or proposal that you are advocating. We need to lower the level of rhetoric on this mailing list. Please relax and wait for the for the Area Directors position document. Regards, Paul ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Paul Lambert Director of Security Products Oracle Corporation Phone: (415) 506-0370 500 Oracle Parkway, Box 659410 Fax: (415) 633-2963 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 E-Mail: palamber@us.oracle.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Secure Jobs" -> send resumes to: palamber@us.oracle.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-- BEGIN included message
- To: ipsec@tis.com
- Subject: Re: SKIP Design & Applicability Statement
- From: "Rich Skrenta <rs@wicked.neato.org>" <ipsec-request@neptune.hq.tis.com>
- Date: 16 Sep 96 08:46:39
- In-Reply-To: <199609130533.WAA10380@mailsun2.us.oracle.com> from "PALAMBER.US.ORACLE.COM" at Sep 12, 96 10:28:15 pm
- Sender: ipsec-approval@neptune.hq.tis.com
[ I'm having problems receiving ipsec at incog.com, so I'm posting this from another account -- rjs ] Paul, I'm sorry you haven't found value in my recent contributions to the discussion on IPsec. I've done my best to keep my replies focused on technical issues, and to avoid as much as possible getting sucked into personal exchanges or unnecessarily replying to messages. Indeed, the quote of mine you selected was taken from a post which included a response from me to John Gilmore's issue about CDP endpoints. This sort of discussion seems entirely appropriate to this forum. I was quite frankly amazed when you characterized Ashar's technical and rather dry applicability statement as "marketing material". I'm certain that if I actually posted anything with the slightest whiff of real marketing hype to this list, my mailbox would quickly be consumed with flames. But indeed, in the week since I sent that message, I haven't received a single personal reply (other than yours), and the only list reply was a response from Phil Karn regarding a technical point about PFS. > Perhaps, but so many postings on the "benefits" of a proposal could appear > self serving. Why is "benefits" in quotes? I am rather upset at being censured in this way by one of the co-chairs. I feel I have acted in good faith to respond to technical discussions on this list. It does not seem fair that others may point out negatives in SKIP, but we are admonished when we respond to these points. This only adds to our concerns about the openness and impartiality of this process. > Your many postings to this list may not be helping to advocate SKIP. For the record, over the past 14 days I have been responsible for 9 of the 116 messages to ipsec. This includes my posting of Ashar's applicability statement. This puts me in third place; Bob Moskowitz and Perry Metzger tied for first, with 10 posts each.
-- END included message