Let me ask a different version of Carlos (and maybe Randy's) point.
If the IETF as a community objected to the content of this draft,
presumably there would ahve been significant dissent during the IETF
last call.
It looked to me like the consensus in support of this was rough but clear.
More importantly, if you think the demonstrated consensus was not in
support of the document, that is a specific process problem.
If you are saying that in spite of the demonstrated rough consensus, you
still say that this violates your understanding of the IETF agreement,
I do not understand how, at this stage of the process, that is your call
to make?
As Carlos quotes, the existing documents make it clear that their must
be judgment calls about these issues.
And such a personal consensus interpretation seems even less grounded
for an informational document aimed, as the abstract states at:
discusses current security and network operations and management
practices that may be impacted by the shift to increased use of
encryption to help guide protocol development in support of
manageable, secure networks.
If you feel the document does not match its abstract, that is a VERY
different objection than claiming that the document violates your
personal take (not demonstrated during IETF last call) on the IETF rough
consensus.
Yours,
Joel
On 2/8/18 9:08 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote:
On Feb 8, 2018, at 5:17 AM, Randy Bush <ra...@psg.com> wrote:
Unfortunately, the fundamental concern that motivated my DISCUSS
remains: I do not believe that this document matches the consensus
of the IETF community.
That's an interesting claim.
If the process has not been followed, this requires facts as opposed
to "believes".
We should make sure to make a distinction between the IETF community
views and your own views.
Eric: I’m also interested in understanding your claim regarding consensus — can
you please expand?
1984 7258
" Making
networks unmanageable to mitigate PM is not an acceptable outcome,
but ignoring PM would go against the consensus documented here. An
appropriate balance will emerge over time as real instances of this
tension are considered.”
7625 ... and dogged comments on this draft; though some of us
have grew a bit weary of the denial game and allowed ourselves to be
shut up.
Or a DDoS against the ideas on this document?
randy
—
Carlos Pignataro, car...@cisco.com
“Sometimes I use big words that I do not fully understand, to make myself sound
more photosynthesis.”
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
