Subject: RE: WG Consensus? (was RE: [Isms] achieving market saturation with ISMS(fwd))

From: "Fleischman, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 11:14:54 -0800

David,

What you write is certainly a possibility. However, the basis for my
claim for WG consensus on my list of requirements is that: 
1) I posted essentially the same list at least five times to this WG
since it was formed -- eight times if you include the BOFs, 
2) I didn't receive push-back to this list 
3) I did receive clarifying comments/discussions, such as what Eric
Rescorla has just done, 
4) several people responded favorably, agreeing with listed requirements
5) all three submitted I-Ds have addressed some of these requirements
(with one addressing all of them). It thus represents the Union of the
requirements to which the I-Ds responded.

However, what I care about is having the WG creating a concrete list of
requirements TOGETHER rather than others necessarily adopt my list as
is. That is, what is needed is a common list WG-wide -- this should have
been formally done months ago. My list is an appropriate starting point,
since it represents a TENTATIVE consensus. However, I sincerely doubt
that my list will be the final finishing point for the WG since I have
not updated it by including the insights of others (i.e., postings of
other requirements by other WG participants).

--Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Nelson, David [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 10:15 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: WG Consensus? (was RE: [Isms] achieving market saturation with
ISMS(fwd))

Eric Fleishman writes...

> Other
> than discussions in the SNMP mail list over two years ago, I haven't
had
> any takers in this WG. Thus, from where I sit, the following ARE 
> consensus ISMS requirements, listed in order of increasing importance:

I'm responding to what is written here, without the benefit of context,
so clarification is welcomed.  However, what I read is an assertion that
postings of requirements, which received no discussion on the WG mailing
list, constitute the WG consensus.  There are times when silence is
acquiescence, but more and more these days silence simply means
disengagement.  More often now, WG consensus needs to be ascertained by
active responses, rather than passive non-responses.  

_______________________________________________
Isms mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms

_______________________________________________
Isms mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 12:00:38 -0800

Hi -

> From: "Fleischman, Eric" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Nelson, David" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 11:14 AM
> Subject: RE: WG Consensus? (was RE: [Isms] achieving market saturation withISMS(fwd))
..
> requirements to which the I-Ds responded.
...

Not quite.  Some I-Ds addressed requirements not on your list.
Consequently, your list is not the union of the requirements.
If it were, the decision would have been relatively simple in
favor of the one proposal that attempts to address your list.
Other requirements, e.g., those from the charter, make things
less clear cut.

David Nelson is making an important point, and it's an issue the
evaluation team debated: whether your list should be treated as
consensus requirements or not.  Dave Perkins seems to believe
the evaluation team erred in considering those requirements, since
they were not spelled out in the WG charter.  Others clearly believe
we should have given them more weight.

> is. That is, what is needed is a common list WG-wide -- this should have

This certainly would have made evaluation easier.  I suspect that getting
WG-wide agreement on some of the items will not be easy, though it
ultimately has to be done, even if only ex post facto in the definition of
what the protocol does.

Randy