[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ESP revisions straw poll
Charles,
I take an immediate issue with your first point and therefore your
conclusion. Your 2nd and 3rd seem reasonable at first read but your 1st
just jumped out and bit me.
> I have a few comments on the recent postings.
>
> First, a procedural issue.
>
> > a) the implementors at Memphis decided against it
>
> It is my understanding that consensus includes more than implementers
> who were able to make it to an IETF meeting. It includes the whole
> working group, whether or not they were able to get to a face to face
> meeting.
The overwhelming majority of people in Memphis gave encryptionless ESP a
big thumbs down. An overwhelming majority of people who are posting
to this list are also giving encryptionless ESP a big thumbs down.
If that's not a consensus then please define what you feel is a consensus.
Do you want 51% of the people who subscribe to this list?
[snip]
> In summary:
[snip]
> Encryptionless ESP:
> In favor, but willing to accept equivalent functionality in AH.
But are you willing to accept the wishes of the working group which may
be at odds with yours (collectively, that is, as a member of the "IPSEC
Document Editing Team")? If not then I'm sure someone else in this WG will
step up-to-the-plate and assume control of the documents.
Imagine if one year ago someone said that today key management would be
basically solved-- minor edit/clarification notwithstanding-- but the
basic architecture and protocol documents would be subject to contentious
arguement and document wrangling. I would've laughed in their face! It's
kind of funny in a perverted sort of way.
Dan.
References: