From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com]
On 2007-01-05 20:55, John C Klensin wrote:
...
I have two questions...
(1) Do you have evidence of actual situations in which an
AD behaved
in this way, kept concerns to him or herself, and then raised them
only, and for the first time, via a DISCUSS after Last Call?
How about a case where an AD had decided, before being an AD,
not to fight against something s/he thought was misguided,
and then found it on the IESG agenda two or three years later?
If you want ADs to take on that type of role they have to have a mandate. The
NOMCOM process is intentionally designed to eliminate accountability and in the
process eliminates any mandate.
ADs have the same rights to bring up issues in IETF last call. They should not
use their ability to raise objections in private in preference to raising them
in public.
Clearly there is always the potential for someone to re-read a draft and
suddenly realize that there is an issue that they had not seen before.
The problem I am having is with the term 'misguided'. This can mean two things:
1) The objector believes that the WG has overlooked an issue or treated it
inadequately.
2) The WG looked into an issue in depth and decided to take an opposite
approach.
This is quite an important issue in the security area. The success rate is not
good. We have a serious problem with Internet crime. The way that we have been
doing security in the past has clearly not worked.
We cannot necessarily wait until everyone in the security area accepts that
risk and accountability based schemes are more useful than end-to-end security.
Looking at the proposals made for BGPSEC it is very clear to me that our
approach is still a minority one within the IETF even though it is arguably now
the consensus amongst security protocol designers.
DKIM is not designed to do the same set of things that S/MIME and PGP are
designed to do. DKIM is not designed to provide non-repudiation, contractual
binding or end-to-end security.
I think we need to remember here that the IETF began as an institution to
facilitate research. There will always be Kuhn type processes underway in some
part of the field. And the IAB and IESG will always be filled with people who
represent the old view rather than the new.
There is a big difference between an individual contributor peddling an
anti-gravity machine and a Working Group with ten active members that has both
a design and a working model.
The risk in allowing type 2 objections to fester is that either the
organization splits a second time or we have another case of an aggrieved party
making a demonstration.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf