Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-smime-cms-mult-sign (CryptographicMessageSyntax(CMS) MultipleSignerClarification) to Proposed Standard
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-smime-cms-mult-sign (CryptographicMessageSyntax(CMS) MultipleSignerClarification) to Proposed Standard
The only person who has really engaged the conversation during the last call period
was the draft editor, i.e. Russ Housley (who also happens to be a Security Area Director,
but in this case he cannot play this role).
So it is "one" against "one" and Sam is now the single Security Area Director allowed to make a decision.
In general the activity on this mailing list is rather low.
Silence on the mailing list is rather difficult to interpret.
I do not agree with the interpretation Blake made of this silence: it like making the dead peole talk.
I cannot understand why Russ is not wishing to try to find a compromise.
In the current situation, I believe it t would be fair to have a straw poll on the mailing list
and raise the two topics separately. I do not expect many responses.
If you agree, I can draft the text of the two questions and propose it to "you" (i.e. Sam and the co-chairs).
Denis
>OK, let me back up and explain the events as I see them and try to
>clarify. And I am certainly welcome to any comments or criticism about
>what my role is or how I should proceed with this.
>
>* My job as WG chair is to make sure that the editor (Russ) has created
>a draft that incorporates what we consider to be the rough consensus of
>the working group.
>
>* You had some comments on this draft. Some of your comments were
>incorporated. Some of your comments had zero support from the WG members
>on the working group mailing list. Clarifications welcome as to exactly
>who else supported these comments.
>
>* WG last call closed over a month after your unincorporated comments
>were made, which allowed plenty of time for anyone to come forward to
>support your position or for any interested parties to discuss them.
>
>* Because of this lack of interest from aFrom ietf-bounces at ietf.org Wed Feb 14 20:43:14 2007
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1HHVaK-0006LV-Q5; Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:38:56 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HGYF7-0008SO-G4
for ietf at ietf.org; Mon, 12 Feb 2007 05:17:05 -0500
Received: from odin2.bull.net ([129.184.85.11])
by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HGYF2-0007Sa-IG
for ietf at ietf.org; Mon, 12 Feb 2007 05:17:05 -0500
Received: from MSGA-001.frcl.bull.fr (msga-001.frcl.bull.fr [129.184.87.31])
by odin2.bull.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA44778;
Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:20:32 +0100
Received: from frcls4013 ([129.182.108.120])
by MSGA-001.frcl.bull.fr (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.11)
with SMTP id 2007021211163059:163278 ;
Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:16:30 +0100
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:16:28 +0100
From: "Denis Pinkas" <denis.pinkas at bull.net>
To: "Blake Ramsdell" <blake at sendmail.com>
X-mailer: Foxmail 5.0 [-fr-]
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on MSGA-001/FR/BULL(Release 5.0.11 |July
24, 2002) at 12/02/2007 11:16:30,
Serialize by Router on MSGA-001/FR/BULL(Release 5.0.11 |July 24,
2002) at 12/02/2007 11:16:33,
Serialize complete at 12/02/2007 11:16:33
Message-ID: <OF528B8AD1.8F8F737D-ONC1257280.00387173 at frcl.bull.fr>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 944ecb6e61f753561f559a497458fb4f
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:38:17 -0500
Cc: "turners at ieca.com" <turners at ieca.com>, Sam Hartman <hartmans at mit.edu>,
"ietf at ietf.org" <ietf at ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-smime-cms-mult-sign
(CryptographicMessageSyntax(CMS) MultipleSignerClarification)
to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: ietf at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ietf-bounces at ietf.org
The only person who has really engaged the conversation during the last call period
was the draft editor, i.e. Russ Housley (who also happens to be a Security Area Director,
but in this case he cannot play this role).
So it is "one" against "one" and Sam is now the single Security Area Director allowed to make a decision.
In general the activity on this mailing list is rather low.
Silence on the mailing list is rather difficult to interpret.
I do not agree with the interpretation Blake made of this silence: it like making the dead peole talk.
I cannot understand why Russ is not wishing to try to find a compromise.
In the current situation, I believe it t would be fair to have a straw poll on the mailing list
and raise the two topics separately. I do not expect many responses.
If you agree, I can draft the text of the two questions and propose it to "you" (i.e. Sam and the co-chairs).
Denis
>OK, let me back up and explain the events as I see them and try to
>clarify. And I am certainly welcome to any comments or criticism about
>what my role is or how I should proceed with this.
>
>* My job as WG chair is to make sure that the editor (Russ) has created
>a draft that incorporates what we consider to be the rough consensus of
>the working group.
>
>* You had some comments on this draft. Some of your comments were
>incorporated. Some of your comments had zero support from the WG members
>on the working group mailing list. Clarifications welcome as to exactly
>who else supported these comments.
>
>* WG last call closed over a month after your unincorporated comments
>were made, which allowed plenty of time for anyone to come forward to
>support your position or for any interested parties to discuss them.
>
>* Because of this lack of interest from aFrom ietf-bounces at ietf.org Wed Feb 14 20:43:14 2007
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1HHVaK-0006LV-Q5; Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:38:56 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HGYF7-0008SO-G4
for ietf at ietf.org; Mon, 12 Feb 2007 05:17:05 -0500
Received: from odin2.bull.net ([129.184.85.11])
by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HGYF2-0007Sa-IG
for ietf at ietf.org; Mon, 12 Feb 2007 05:17:05 -0500
Received: from MSGA-001.frcl.bull.fr (msga-001.frcl.bull.fr [129.184.87.31])
by odin2.bull.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA44778;
Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:20:32 +0100
Received: from frcls4013 ([129.182.108.120])
by MSGA-001.frcl.bull.fr (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.11)
with SMTP id 2007021211163059:163278 ;
Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:16:30 +0100
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:16:28 +0100
From: "Denis Pinkas" <denis.pinkas at bull.net>
To: "Blake Ramsdell" <blake at sendmail.com>
X-mailer: Foxmail 5.0 [-fr-]
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on MSGA-001/FR/BULL(Release 5.0.11 |July
24, 2002) at 12/02/2007 11:16:30,
Serialize by Router on MSGA-001/FR/BULL(Release 5.0.11 |July 24,
2002) at 12/02/2007 11:16:33,
Serialize complete at 12/02/2007 11:16:33
Message-ID: <OF528B8AD1.8F8F737D-ONC1257280.00387173 at frcl.bull.fr>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 944ecb6e61f753561f559a497458fb4f
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:38:17 -0500
Cc: "turners at ieca.com" <turners at ieca.com>, Sam Hartman <hartmans at mit.edu>,
"ietf at ietf.org" <ietf at ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-smime-cms-mult-sign
(CryptographicMessageSyntax(CMS) MultipleSignerClarification)
to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: ietf at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ietf-bounces at ietf.org
The only person who has really engaged the conversation during the last call period
was the draft editor, i.e. Russ Housley (who also happens to be a Security Area Director,
but in this case he cannot play this role).
So it is "one" against "one" and Sam is now the single Security Area Director allowed to make a decision.
In general the activity on this mailing list is rather low.
Silence on the mailing list is rather difficult to interpret.
I do not agree with the interpretation Blake made of this silence: it like making the dead peole talk.
I cannot understand why Russ is not wishing to try to find a compromise.
In the current situation, I believe it t would be fair to have a straw poll on the mailing list
and raise the two topics separately. I do not expect many responses.
If you agree, I can draft the text of the two questions and propose it to "you" (i.e. Sam and the co-chairs).
Denis
>OK, let me back up and explain the events as I see them and try to
>clarify. And I am certainly welcome to any comments or criticism about
>what my role is or how I should proceed with this.
>
>* My job as WG chair is to make sure that the editor (Russ) has created
>a draft that incorporates what we consider to be the rough consensus of
>the working group.
>
>* You had some comments on this draft. Some of your comments were
>incorporated. Some of your comments had zero support from the WG members
>on the working group mailing list. Clarifications welcome as to exactly
>who else supported these comments.
>
>* WG last call closed over a month after your unincorporated comments
>were made, which allowed plenty of time for anyone to come forward to
>support your position or for any interested parties to discuss them.
>
>* Because of this lack of interest from aFrom ietf-bounces at ietf.org Wed Feb 14 20:43:14 2007
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1HHVaK-0006LV-Q5; Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:38:56 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HGYF7-0008SO-G4
for ietf at ietf.org; Mon, 12 Feb 2007 05:17:05 -0500
Received: from odin2.bull.net ([129.184.85.11])
by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HGYF2-0007Sa-IG
for ietf at ietf.org; Mon, 12 Feb 2007 05:17:05 -0500
Received: from MSGA-001.frcl.bull.fr (msga-001.frcl.bull.fr [129.184.87.31])
by odin2.bull.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA44778;
Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:20:32 +0100
Received: from frcls4013 ([129.182.108.120])
by MSGA-001.frcl.bull.fr (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.11)
with SMTP id 2007021211163059:163278 ;
Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:16:30 +0100
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:16:28 +0100
From: "Denis Pinkas" <denis.pinkas at bull.net>
To: "Blake Ramsdell" <blake at sendmail.com>
X-mailer: Foxmail 5.0 [-fr-]
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on MSGA-001/FR/BULL(Release 5.0.11 |July
24, 2002) at 12/02/2007 11:16:30,
Serialize by Router on MSGA-001/FR/BULL(Release 5.0.11 |July 24,
2002) at 12/02/2007 11:16:33,
Serialize complete at 12/02/2007 11:16:33
Message-ID: <OF528B8AD1.8F8F737D-ONC1257280.00387173 at frcl.bull.fr>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 944ecb6e61f753561f559a497458fb4f
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:38:17 -0500
Cc: "turners at ieca.com" <turners at ieca.com>, Sam Hartman <hartmans at mit.edu>,
"ietf at ietf.org" <ietf at ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-smime-cms-mult-sign
(CryptographicMessageSyntax(CMS) MultipleSignerClarification)
to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: ietf at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ietf-bounces at ietf.org
The only person who has really engaged the conversation during the last call period
was the draft editor, i.e. Russ Housley (who also happens to be a Security Area Director,
but in this case he cannot play this role).
So it is "one" against "one" and Sam is now the single Security Area Director allowed to make a decision.
In general the activity on this mailing list is rather low.
Silence on the mailing list is rather difficult to interpret.
I do not agree with the interpretation Blake made of this silence: it like making the dead peole talk.
I cannot understand why Russ is not wishing to try to find a compromise.
In the current situation, I believe it t would be fair to have a straw poll on the mailing list
and raise the two topics separately. I do not expect many responses.
If you agree, I can draft the text of the two questions and propose it to "you" (i.e. Sam and the co-chairs).
Denis
>OK, let me back up and explain the events as I see them and try to
>clarify. And I am certainly welcome to any comments or criticism about
>what my role is or how I should proceed with this.
>
>* My job as WG chair is to make sure that the editor (Russ) has created
>a draft that incorporates what we consider to be the rough consensus of
>the working group.
>
>* You had some comments on this draft. Some of your comments were
>incorporated. Some of your comments had zero support from the WG members
>on the working group mailing list. Clarifications welcome as to exactly
>who else supported these comments.
>
>* WG last call closed over a month after your unincorporated comments
>were made, which allowed plenty of time for anyone to come forward to
>support your position or for any interested parties to discuss them.
>
>* Because of this lack of interest from anyone but yourself, those
>comments were considered the "rough" part of "rough consensus" and were
>not incorporated. That is, you had something that wasn't working for
>you, you explained your concern on the mailing list, and no one else
>shared that concern.
>
>* As WG chair, I believe that this was the right way to proceed, Sean as
>co-chair was in agreement, and the draft progressed out of the working
>group.
>
>Denis Pinkas wrote:
>> You previously said:
>>
>> "I strongly suggest that you try and build consensus for these two
>> positions separately".
>>
>> I keep trying.
>
>I believe that Sam's recommendation was to take each issue separately
>and present them clearly to others in the community, and then try to
>determine what the consensus is about each issue. That is, start a
>discussion, and based on the outcome of that discussion see where we
>stood. This didn't happen.
>
>> Now you say:
>>
>>> It is the WG chairs' job to describe the reasoning for why your
>>> comments were rejected during the WG discussion and I've asked the
>>> chairs to do that.
>>
>> This does not sound to be a way to try to build consensus for these two
>> positions separately. Am I missing something ?
>
>I'm willing to accept criticism here, but it's not my job to build the
>consensus for you. It's my job to determine if an issue has been raised,
>and to determine if the community has had enough time to review it, and
>to make sure that the author has incorporated what I believe the
>consensus to be.
>
>* You raised some issues
>
>* No one commented on the issues
>
>* You escalated the issues
>
>* No one commented on the issues
>
>* This indicates to me that these issues are only interesting to you,
>and not to the WG at large, and thus does not reflect the consensus. I
>mean, I'm not so bold as to say that people are in active disagreement
>with your position, but I will say that no one cares enough about it to
>warrant supporting it.
>
>So I'm willing to do whatever is required here to make sure that I'm
>doing my job right, and to make sure that I'm facilitating the creation
>of high quality drafts. But as far as whether or not your comments have
>gotten their due consideration from the working group, I will say
>emphatically that I think they have.
>
>Blake
>--
>Blake Ramsdell | Sendmail, Inc. | http://www.sendmail.com
>
Regards,
Denis Pinkas
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions
of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.
Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.
