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

RE: One base SOI ID? Humm



Title: RE: One base SOI ID? Humm

Another excellent point Charlie!!  My observation all along was that there are today (and months ago) two protocol drafts that were mature.  In my humble opinion, supported by my colleagues back home that will have to implement the next generation of IKE, the draft known as IKE v2 is a complete protocol specification and a relatively easy transition from v1.  The comments from the list as summarized at the WG meeting this week were closely tracking what the v2 draft was already proposing (Charlie's opening observation before he presented the summary of comments).  The current draft is good enough in our view and we would not like to see this IKEv2 draft become so homogenized with the other "bale of hay" as to render it unrecognizable from its current rendition.

Keep up the good work Charlie for good protocols.

Cheers,

Dennis Beard

Oh yeah, here's a mega HUMMM for v2.

-----Original Message-----
From: Charlie_Kaufman@notesdev.ibm.com
[mailto:Charlie_Kaufman@notesdev.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 9:08 PM
To: Gregory Lebovitz
Cc: 'ipsec@lists.tislabs.com'
Subject: Re: One base SOI ID? Humm






> 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)