On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Eric Rosen <erosen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Stewart> The -03 text is a significant improvement, but I still fear the > Stewart> impact of single issue technical politics on the output of our > Stewart> document stream. > > Let's face it, the draft is nothing but a political manifesto, and the IETF > has no business even considering it. It is also clear from this discussion > that there is no consensus, even rough consensus, in favor. Anyone who has been around in the IETF long enough has seen this before. Rabid opposition to real consideration of strong security. I have seen yelling at plenaries. I've heard people say how the IETF will be destroyed or become irrelevant if we don't bow to the US Government rules. Etc. If you want to distort the word "political" to try to characterize this, I don't care that much. This draft is completely in line with the previous admirable IETF engineering positions on security. > Note the tone taken by proponents of the draft. ... one cannot determine from the draft what the actual impact on IETF process is ... claim the support of a "silent majority" ... Note the tone taken by opponents of the draft. Gross distortions and mischaracterization of the draft. I hope people reading the IETF discussion list, if they care about this issue, will actually read the draft and see what it actually says, which is pretty reasonable. The intended effect on IETF process is clear enough to me from the document, at least in version -03. Determining consensus is an all-sources, kind of thing and the person judging consensus is entirely within their rights to take into account meeting, mailing list, personal discussions, etc. I am in the consensus in supporting this draft and I an not being silent. > >... Thanks, Donald ============================= Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx