Subject: Re: [Isms] Rough Consensus Declaration: ISMS Architecture is EK

From: Keith McCloghrie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 12:21:52 -0700 (PDT)

> >Why doesn't this look to you like a 3 way tie?  Not that I like the 
> >results, mind you, but then I am up for option (d) which is not on the 
> >table.
> 
> I admit, it's close to a three-way tie.  But the WG was told that we
> had to have an architecture picked by the end of April.  Given that, we
> have to pick SOMETHING, or shut down.  If people think that shutting
> down is the appropriate option, let's hear about it.  But I don't think
> we have the opportunity to pick option (d).
> 
> Juergen and I are of the opinion that EK seems to be the architecture
> that most people can live with (it had the least number of "no" votes,
> but again, not by a lot).  This is why we decided there was rough
> consensus for it.  It was not easy to make that decision, but ....
> well, shoot.  I'm not sure what else we could have done.
 
While there were some inaccuracies in the counts (**), I realise that
you are trying to find some decision here.  However, the basis on which
you've chosen seems to be the least-liked keying mechanism, merely
because it also happens to be least-hated keying mechanism.  That seems
to me to be a recipe for mediocrity.

Neverthless, the "vote" just taken was for the keying mechanism; it was
not for/against the proposals.  So, if your decision is to stand, I
respectfully request that the SBSM and EUSM proposals be given the
*opportunity* to update their proposals to use Encapsulated Keying as
their method of obtaining keys.

Keith.

** There were some uncounted votes; it also appears that both "second
pref" and "implied pref" were counted as "Yes", but "implied second
pref" was counted as "Maybe", eh??  The AD's was counted in the "Yes"
for all the proposals !!

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

---

From: Ken Hornstein <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 15:45:41 -0400

>to me to be a recipe for mediocrity.

To be fair ... EK also got the most number of "Yes" votes (we're counting
"maybe" as "yes" here).

>their method of obtaining keys.

Absolutely.  We haven't even started the protocol design; at this stage,
anything could happen.

>pref" was counted as "Maybe", eh??  The AD's was counted in the "Yes"

I have Sam as "N  y  y".  Are the totals wrong?

I hope everyone understands that we're not going by absolute votes; the
preference tallying was more of a tool to help us judge consensus,
since it wasn't clear from the mailing list discussion.  Given the
opinions presented on the mailing list, combined with the preference
tally, I still feel that EK was the closest thing we had to a rough
consensus agreement.  (I did go back and check the votes that we
missed; they wouldn't have changed the overall ranking).

--Ken