RE: One base SOI ID? Humm

["Andrew Krywaniuk" <andrew.krywaniuk@alcatel.com>]

That's really easy to say, but the IPsec working groups is everyone's
favorite tourist trap, not a small group of like-minded individuals that
formed a BOF yesterday. Part of the group wants simplicity and minimalism at
all costs and part of the group wants features X, Y, and Z. The requirements
process tends to break down when the top two requirements are mutually
contradictory.

Andrew
-------------------------------------------
There are no rules, only regulations. Luckily,
history has shown that with time, hard work,
and lots of love, anyone can be a technocrat.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
> [mailto:owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com]On Behalf Of Alex Alten
> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 11:17 PM
> To: Charlie_Kaufman@notesdev.ibm.com; Gregory Lebovitz
> Cc: 'ipsec@lists.tislabs.com'
> Subject: Re: One base SOI ID? Humm
>
>
> It sounds like the requirements were never really spec'd out.
> Why not specify the top 10 requirements, and then run a test/
> runoff/review of the two proposals.  The one that meets the 10
> requirements the best should be the winner.
>
> - Alex
>
> At 09:08 PM 7/17/2002 -0400, Charlie_Kaufman@notesdev.ibm.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> Barbara just said that if more of this community were
> physically here at
> >54
> >> in Yokohama, she would take a humm poll about whether to
> move forward
> >with
> >> one SOI ID, one bail of hay.
> >>
> >> Here we go...
> >>
> >> "hum via email if you agree with the two ID authors coming
> back to the
> >list
> >> with one ID for us to move forward discussing."
> >>
> >> Here's mine:    HMMMMM!!!
> >
> >If only life were so simple. Everyone agrees that there
> should be one ID.
> >The donkey knows he wants hay. The donkey telling the hay to
> rearrange
> >itself into one bail is unlikely to work. There aren't two
> authors. IVEv2
> >has
> >5 coauthors and JFK has 7. It was a challenge getting them
> to compromise
> >among themselves. While over time, the two groups have moved towards
> >one another, they are not going to reach agreement without more
> >strong-arming than hums.
> >
> >One way to resolve this is for the working group to declare a winner.
> >Another way (the Soloman approach) is to tell both groups that both
> >proposals will be abandoned unless one group withdraws. I can't
> >predict the outcome, but I don't recommend it.
> >
> >It's possible that a threat that the working group will declare
> >a winner on some date (August 31st?) if consensus is not reached
> >before that will inspire the groups to compromise (based on what
> >they think their respective chances are of winning... like a plea
> >bargain that both sides prefer to rolling the dice even if neither
> >believes it is 'fair').
> >
> >I propose that a good first step would be for each camp to
> >choose a negotiator and commit (perhaps with reservations)
> >to live with an agreement they reach. Haggling by email is
> >hard.
> >
> >          --Charlie Kaufman
> >         (ckaufman@notesdev.ibm.com)
> >
> --
>
> Alex Alten
> Alten@ATTBI.com
>