Subject: Re: Availability of updated drafts?

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 13:02:36 -0400

In message <[email-masked]>, Bernard Ab
oba writes:
>At times reading the IPSRA mailing list is a little like following the
>Florida re-count...
>
>May I interrupt the regularly scheduled program for a question relating to
>work items?
>
>Over the last two meetings, we've thrown out a variety of ideas on how to
>move forward. At one point it was suggested that some sort of merger of
>PIC and GetCert might be possible. We've talked about an updated GetCert
>draft, or perhaps an CMP/EAP draft. 
>
>What are the obstacles, if any, to getting this work done? Do the authors
>feel it's not a good idea? Not have time? Perhaps lack some expertise that
>might be supplied? Not sure if anyone will implement the result? 
>

After Bob and I talked with the chairs, we all agreed that there
was no point to writing more drafts for a direction the working
group didn't want to go in.  The idea was that after the straw
poll, one group or the other would get back to work.  But the first
straw poll was a lot later than expected, leaving no time for a new
draft before Minneapolis even if there had been a clear result.

After this straw poll, we have to move ahead.  If there's still no
clear consensus, someone will flip a coin.  As I said at the meeting,
though I (of course) prefer getcert, I personally don't care that much
about it versus pic -- both have fundamentally the right philosophy.

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 14:11:42 -0700 (PDT)

> group didn't want to go in.  

Actually, this is a limbo state that more and more WGs seem to be
falling into nowadays. Working groups only move at the speed at which they
think. Lack of consensus often arises from unresolved issues, to which the
solution is more thinking, not more polls. 

In this case, a better process would have been to evaluate the proposals
against the reqts.  and give the authors the chance to remediate any
disclosed deficiencies. Once we had the best proposals that they could
muster, then consensus would be more likely. 

Because we've been drozen in "election result" mode for more
several months now, the proposals have not advanced to address the issues
that were identified. Thus, my vote is more based on the
"eventual" direction that I think the proposals will take, rather
than the current versions, neither of which I think are acceptable. 

In summary, I don't believe that more polling will produce
consensus. What we need is not more polls, but more thought, and a
formal evaluation process.