[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ESP revisions straw poll
> 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.
Charlie,
this working group has suffered a very long time from "procedural
issues". The effect is pretty clear. Do we have a nailed down doc
yet??
At the wg mtg's we try to agree to something. Then after the mtg,
people argue about it on the list and claim "procedure" since they
either don't like the outcome or just like to be heard (you know who you
are). So things get argued around until the next mtg. Then at the
meeting, when things get contentious, someone wearing a hat says: "Let's
take this one to the list." On the list nothing get's said or nothing
get's decided. Then a bunch of people are frustrated, so at the next
mtg we try to agree to something. Then after the mtg, people argue
about it on the list and claim procedure ...
We need to accept one of our decisions and agree that it represents a
reasonable consensus. The folks at the Memphis mtg represent the vast
lions share of IPSEC developers. Crying "procedure" at this point is
nothing more than sour grapes. It would be nice if the chair(s) would
help focus this rather than sit silently in the gallery. The documents
need to come out now with the current group consensus, or please let
someone else finishe them.
Dave Carrel
(convinced that the "process" is NOT working.)
References: