Subject: RE: [MSEC] standardizing source auth schemes

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 12:18:01 -0400

A new thread is started without answering the similar questions raised
in the previous thread.

You talk about consensus w.r.t. I-Ds. Can you tell me one instance of
hum/vote on any I-Ds presented in IETF-60?

In the case of GDOIv2, only one gentleman stood up and said he supports
GDOIv2. There was no hum or vote taken. On proposals made by me, there 
was no hum/vote. There was no comment from anybody in the WG stating 
whether they want or don't want these as WG items.

I thought IETF worked using rough consensus, if not consensus. Unfortunately,
none of those guidelines were followed in the MSEC WG meeting at IETF-60
(there was no single hum or vote).

Atul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of ext Dondeti,
> Lakshminath
> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 11:32 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [MSEC] standardizing source auth schemes
> 
> In terms of what becomes a WG doc and what doesn't, we have the 
> consensus processes (let the games begin).  On whether all 
> the new I-Ds 
> become standards/experimental/BCP/informational, the chairs and ADs 
> might opine on that.  I will just hint that we might draw a 
> lesson here 
> from RMT :-).  Another clue might be to see how encryption and 
> authentication schemes are defined in the past.
> 
> best,
> Lakshminath
> _______________________________________________
> msec mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/msec
> 
_______________________________________________
msec mailing list
[email-masked]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/msec

---

From: "Dondeti, Lakshminath" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 12:34:07 -0400

On thread renaming: there was a suggestion (by Radia?) made not too long 
ago to rename threads when the topic and the discussion don't match.  I 
think it's  quite helpful.

On procedural matters: please check with chairs and ADs.

On GDOIv2: there was a discussion and I think consensus on the list 
quite a while ago.

On your work: a few folks raised issues.  I would revise, resubmit, and 
invite discussion.  For instance, think about an application scenario 
(or requirements) where your scheme would work better than other schemes 
proposed in the literature, and start from there.  Also, please see my 
response to your questions.

best wishes,
Lakshminath

---

From: George Gross <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 10:23:52 -0400 (EDT)

Hi Atul,

> hum/vote on any I-Ds presented in IETF-60?

In fact, any movement/proposal taken at a working group meeting is not
binding, as the reality is that in the IETF standards process rough
consensus only can be achieved on its mailing list. Even if a straw vote
is taken at a WG face-to-face meeting, it is not binding on the WG's
community, a follow up must be brought to the list after the meeting.

> (there was no single hum or vote).

There is no obligation for the WG to hum, vote, or exhibit any other
behavior at its face-to-face meetings ;o) Well, within the norms of
decency I suppose. Seriously, one of the good things about the IETF
standards process is that it is mailing list driven, and does not force
you to attend in person to participate as an equal. So please don't feel
slighted that the working group did not immediately make any decision wrt/
your work.

so rest assured, MSEC will likely examine each of the
proposals/presentations from IETF60 in its own good time on this list. If
past observations hold true, it will take time, and it will field comments
from the usual interested parties, and consensus will emerge.

hth,
	George