[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: IPSEC WG chairs unresponsive, disruptive, and biased

 
 
John, 
 
>From:     John Gilmore 
>I too submitted revisions to the draft Montreal minutes, .... 
>... 
>None of these revisions were reflected in the minutes posted this week 
>by the co-chairs. 
 
After the posting of the last IPsec minutes you posted some "additions": 
 
>Date: Mon, 05 Aug 1996 23:55:26 -0700 
>From:     John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com>  
>  
>Some minutes additions from my own notes: 
 
You never asked that the minutes be modified.  It is a pain in the @#$% to get 
the minutes out.  If you have specific contributions please be clear.  If you 
think that the minutes are in error, give specific suggestions for text 
replacement.  The minutes were already in the IETF archive and your 
"additions" were interpreted by me to be mail list comments and not a specific 
request to change the already submitted documentation.  There is a fairly 
tight deadline to get the minutes into the IETF.  In the future we will post 
the minutes in draft form to the list for review and approval. 
 
>I have heard complaints from a wide variety of people about the 
>conduct of the IP Security working group co-chairs. 
 
So have I, please calm down and address your own concerns rather then spread 
third party complaints.  These other "complaints" were pushed very hard in 
July and August.  Ashar had attempted to remove my co-chair (Ran) for bias 
through complaints to the IAB.  The accusation stated that there must be an 
unfair bias since his employer had announced a implementation that was not 
based on SKIP (please excuse my terse summary).  This issue was addressed by 
the IAB and no grounds or evidence for "bias" were found.   
 
Speaking as the other co-chair, I can honestly claim to have no bias for any 
of the proposals in the key management debate.  My company currently has no 
investment in any of the technologies.  If I were forced to implement an IPsec 
key management system today I would select SKIP.  As a co-chair I have been 
careful not to bias the group or push my opinion on the specific proposals 
being offered. 
 
I have also seen no specific bias by my co-chair against the SKIP technology.  
We both have a responsibility to moderate this groups discussions which does 
force us to comment on the nature and timing of posting that are 
inappropriate.  We are also in the difficult position of determining 
consensus.  The working group is split in it's views.  No bias has created 
this situation.  The frustration with this deadlock obvious.  The deadlock is 
being resolved. 
 
Many vendors on this list have invested in key management technologies (SKIP, 
ISAKMP, Photuris, YAKMP, MKMP, KMP, SAMP, and others). This makes the upcoming 
decision on direction very sensitive.  We need to put aside the posturing and 
move forward. 
 
>But I continue to see 
>examples of how the co-chairs act to disrupt and skew, rather than to 
>foster, the process of reaching rough consensus.  I will refrain from 
>speculation on whether this is intentional on their part, or whether 
>they are merely not suited to the task of managing a complex and 
>contentious working group. 
 
Please John, such general accusations are very unfair.  I do admit pounding my 
"virtual gavel" once in the last month on a posting by Rich Skrenta. If you 
have specific problems with the working group process or minutes first e-mail 
or call me (preferred) to work them out.  We need to reduce the noise on the 
mailing list.  The issues are better worked out directly then by e-mail 
broadcast.  As for opportunities to "skew" the process, there is very little 
that I can do to push opinions one way or the other.  If there was a way to 
push the group, we would have consensus now and not be split into factions.  
This is why we will soon have a decision mandated. 
 
>IESG readers may not have seen Ashar Asiz's recent messages regarding 
>how the coverage of his SKIP proposal in the minutes has been highly 
>biased for the last two working group meetings. 
 
No, his comments were on the last minutes and the December 1994 minutes 
(nearly two years ago).  "Highly biased" is subjective ... the minutes will be 
edited until all parties interested agree that they are not incorrect (note - 
I don't want to starting adding significant text).  Please consider that good 
will would be generated in the working group as a whole (perhaps even 
consensus) by editorial suggestions (minutes or the specifications) that are 
submitted as constructive and clearly defined changes rather than combative 
complaints.  
 
>In my particular case, the minutes report that Jeff's straw polls 
>"showed significant differences of opinion between Oakley/ISAKMP and 
>SKIP", when in fact, as Jeff had told me in advance, he had 
>deliberately structured his questions to avoid doing straw-polls on 
>particular algorithms. 
 
Please send direct text replacement for minute changes.  I plan to avoid 
recording any of the straw poll numbers since the IETF does not vote and 
because there seems to be several versions of these numbers.  The basic 
conclusion was that there was not consensus.  A decision will be mandated by 
the Security Directorate. 
 
Please try to facilitate this decision.  Once again, we need to move forward 
based on this decision. 
 
 
Regards, 
 
Paul 
 
 
 
PS - unresponsive...? 
 
>Subject:  IPSEC WG chairs unresponsive, disruptive, and biased 
 
While I feel obligated to directly answer complaints about the co-chairs to 
the mailing list, I do have a real job that can create a several day response 
lag to e-mail.  If you are referring to the minutes... we will do what it 
takes to correct the existing minutes (not Dec 94).  Responding to combative 
complaints is not constructive and I hope that we find a better way for us all 
to contribute. 
 
 
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
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

I too submitted revisions to the draft Montreal minutes, to provide a
web pointer for my "rapid IPSEC deployment" proposal, and to record
what specific questions were asked by Jeff Schiller at the end of the
"key managment" meeting, and what the rough votes in response were.
None of these revisions were reflected in the minutes posted this week
by the co-chairs.

I have heard complaints from a wide variety of people about the
conduct of the IP Security working group co-chairs.  A certain amount
of it I could attribute to general grousing.  But I continue to see
examples of how the co-chairs act to disrupt and skew, rather than to
foster, the process of reaching rough consensus.  I will refrain from
speculation on whether this is intentional on their part, or whether
they are merely not suited to the task of managing a complex and
contentious working group.

I would welcome input from the Working Group and from IESG members on
how to handle this situation.  I think it has been swept under the rug
for far too long.

IESG readers may not have seen Ashar Asiz's recent messages regarding
how the coverage of his SKIP proposal in the minutes has been highly
biased for the last two working group meetings.  I'll be glad to
forward them to interested parties, or they can be found in this
week's ipsec@tis.com mailing list archives.  Here is an excerpt:

> Also, when there are competing proposals, I believe some 
> consideration should be given to fairness in the way the various 
> proposals are described. I refer specifically to the use of 
> adjectives such as "significant overhead", "hard to implement 
> and scale" and "claimed" support of multicast when describing 
> SKIP. By contrast, adjectives used for ISAKMP/Oakley are 
> "very general", "very flexible", etc.

In my particular case, the minutes report that Jeff's straw polls
"showed significant differences of opinion between Oakley/ISAKMP and
SKIP", when in fact, as Jeff had told me in advance, he had
deliberately structured his questions to avoid doing straw-polls on
particular algorithms.  Here's the minutes coverage, followed by my
unaccepted revisions to the minutes.  Jeff should have notes that
confirm which description is more complete and more accurate.

> Closing discussions were process oriented, i.e., how will the WG decide
> what will become the default key management standard for IPSEC ? Jeff
> Schiller conducted straw polls which showed significant differences of
> opinion between Oakley/ISAKMP and SKIP, although everyone wants a quick
> resolution to the issue! Jeff suggests having a special committee come back
> with a justifiable resolution.

Message-Id: <199608060655.XAA10933@toad.com>
To: "PALAMBER.US.ORACLE.COM" <PALAMBER@us.oracle.com>
cc: ipsec@TIS.COM, gnu
Subject: Re: IPsec Minutes from Montreal 
In-reply-to: <199608052345.QAA16081@mailsun2.us.oracle.com> 
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 1996 23:55:26 -0700
From: John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com>

Some minutes additions from my own notes:

Details on my presentation on rapid deployment of IPSEC in the first
meeting are available at http://www.cygnus.com/~gnu/swan.html.

Jeff Schiller's closing discussions in the second meeting included
these "straw poll" questions, with my rough estimations of the
audience reaction.  He said he deliberately structured the questions
to avoid a straw-poll on particular algorithms, but instead focused on
our goals or process.

  Should we let the marketplace decide on a key managment standard,
  or should we pick one and move forward?

	  Marketplace - 2/5
	  Pick one    - 3/5

  Should we favor generality, or simplicity?

	  Generality  - 2/5
	  Simplicity  - 3/5

  Do we have to have a plan by the next IETF?

	  On this we have consensus -- YES.

  Should Jeff grab a few of the WG people who are known not to be committed
  to any proposal, and together decide?

	  Strong consensus that this was not the way to go.

This was when he suggested convening a small group, largely composed of
the authors/proponents of existing proposals, to try to hammer out a
compromise proposal.  He also said that if this group didn't come up with
anything by September, Jeff would personally choose one as the standard,
though he did not want to be forced to do that.

	John

-- END included message