[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ESP revisions straw poll
Stephen Kent writes:
> I now have new appreciation for what Ran and Paul have endured as
> co-chairs for this group. In initiating this straw poll, I clear did a
> bad job, e.g., by not following the lead that Ran established in the ones
> that he administered. For example, I failed to establish the duration over
> whioch the poll would be conducted, and I failed to mention that private
> "votes" (ones not sent to the list) would be counted, etc. Mea culpa; I
> was too informal in trying to conduct this informal poll
Steve;
I realize that some other people care passionately about the
encryptionless ESP issue. Myself, I don't care much, quite
frankly. I'm happy either way, and I have no personal leanings. I also
think it makes no real practical difference. *I REALLY MEAN THIS*.
I have no personal axe to grind here.
However, I'm a bit of a stickler for following procedure. We had a
meeting at Memphis and the issue wasn't even close. We had close to
unanimity against encryptionless ESP. This being the IETF, we follow
the consensus. It wasn't even a rough consensus -- it was pretty damn
close to everyone.
I don't see any reason to believe this has changed. I understand that
some people might perhaps feel that not all ideas have been completely
expressed, but I think we've already had closure on this.
If we feel free to re-open every possible point just because we
dislike the outcomes, then how can we possibly make progress? I wanted
3DES to be mandatory to implement and I gave up on that early on -- I
didn't even make much of a public argument, given that it was clear
consenus wasn't with me. Should I follow your precedent and begin
arguing the point now? Shall we re-open the question of IV lengths?
The reason the IETF process works is because people agree to follow
the rules. If we don't follow the rules, it falls apart.
Perry
Follow-Ups:
References: