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

RE: draft-ietf-ipsec-ciph-aes-ctr-00.txt



At 12:39 PM -0700 8/6/02, David A. Mcgrew wrote:
>Steve,
>
>this email is directed at the personal rather than technical comments that
>you made yesterday.
>
>>  Finally, you dispute, thought only faintly, my characterization of
>>  the history of the design team and how we got to this point. There
>>  really is little ambiguity here. Russ was added to the team at your
>>  invitation. One might argue about whether you asked him to join in an
>>  effort to sway the team to your proposal.
>
>While I respect Russ, and his contribution to the debate has been positive,
>I did not invite him to be a co-author of the counter mode draft that Bob
>Moskowitz was editing.  This should be obvious, since I never had the
>authority to appoint contributors or editors!  Nor was I aware that Bob
>intended to turn over the document to Russ; like many, I found out about it
>after the fact.

The text you quote above fro my message says nothing about Russ being 
named to edit the document. The WG chairs made that decision. I 
stated that you invited Russ to become a member of the design team. 
Why are you providing a response that does not address my comment?

>  > It is a fact, however, that
>>  Russ developed a compromise document, that the rest of the design
>>  team agreed to it,
>
>By my count, there were seven people on the 'design team', two of whom
>wanted a secret counter component, two of whom expressed a desire to avoid
>packet expansion, and four of whom expressed agreement with the compromise
>outlined by Russ.  But this fact is immaterial, since the counter mode
>document is a WG action item and as such is intended to represent the WG and
>not any particular subset of individuals.

When Russ proposed the compromise design, only you objected. Niels 
Furgeson, Jesse Walker, Steve Bellovin, and I agreed with Russ. 
That's 5 out of 7, by my count. The various positions of the design 
team members prior to Russ' proposed compromise was not the point of 
my observation. You persist on trying to spin the discussion to suit 
your ends. Doesn't' this get tiring after a while?

>  >  and that you choose to bring your arguments to the
>>  list in an effort to reject the compromise.
>>
>>  Steve
>
>I participate in the IETF in order to promote open standards for useful new
>technologies.
>
>David

Those of us who have been working in the IETF to develop open 
standards for many years know to NEVER use our employer's name in an 
argument, generally know how to work out disagreements in design 
teams, and know how to accept compromises in an effort to make 
progress in working groups. The recent successful compromise between 
the JFK and IKE v2 design teams to create a next generation key 
management protocol for IPsec is a good example. These would be good 
skills for you to develop.

Steve