Steve,
At 7:53 AM 12/30/94, Steve Kent wrote:
you are on. In skimming through recent messages I thought you were
criticizing some WG participants for trying to delay approval of this
spec along procedural grounds, and now you are arguing, along
I was criticizing an effort to discuss fundamentals, rather than on
the details of moving the specs along. My earlier notes exhorted folks to
expedite the specs. My note to you stated the usual IETF working group
mechanism for achieving that result. Seems consistent to me.
As for the goals not being newborn, well that is a point of
contention. One of the problems I think we have here is that the
current spec does not do a good job of stating what its goals are, and
Small point: there are two specs. I assume that you are referring
to the PEM&MIME one and not the Security Multiparts one? In any event...
how it accomplishes them, expect as a delta to 1421. The problem with
I gather that this means you are not comfortable with the content
of Section 1, in particular with its discussion of the relationship of this
work to the classic PEM spec and that that is what your latest exchange
with the authors is about? Let me suggest, at this point, that the way
these debates are conducted productively is for those with criticisms of a
spec to a) highlight the inadequate text, and b) offer alternative text.
In particular, generic statements of unhappiness with generic aspects of a
spec do not constitute constructive input.
the problems being solved. But, as my mother always said, "just
because other people do it, that doesn't make it right." I am
One suspects that your mother would not make a successful IETF
participant. The point behind the examples I cited was that they are
generally viewed as successful, very much in contrast with efforts that are
done in the more intuitively reasonable approach with massive upfront
modeling, etc.
Finally, to be quite blunt, one IAB member and two IESG
members have told me over the last few weeks (without solicitation)
that they view the spec in question as very bad. The term "shit" was
Well, you've already received some feedback on this rather
unfortunate paragraph. Not sure what productive intent you had in either
the form or the content of the paragraph, but I do know that there are
always critics of working group output; often they are on the IAB or IESG,
and their opinion counts for little, unless they participate in the working
group. It counts for even less when there is no detail provided.
Or are you stating that you perceive a potential that the IESG will
reject the specs? In such cases, it is usual that concerns are stated
explicitly, along with the specific requirements for repair.
By the way, my own technical assessment of the Security Multipart
document is that it is simple, clear and reasonable.
... I feel
bad that, due to other commitments, that I have not been able to work
more closely with the authors, especially Jim Galvin, to help resolve
I'd class the current, deteriorated exchanges between the chair and
3 of the authors as pretty serious. More serious than general comments
from IAB or IESG members. One hopes this gets fixed immediately.
comments that have been brought forth. Nonetheless, that doesn't mean
that the spec should be approved while there are serious concerns
about it.
Depends on the legitimacy and constituency of the concerns. My own
reading on the exchanges since the San Jose IETF is that the concerns
pertain to boundary conditions or to fundamental choices that were made
months ago. The former are not going to get resolved by static analysis
and strongly warrant moving to the develop&test phase of standardization;
the latter are simply out of order.
The usual IETF method for resolving differences in fundamental
approach, after trying to "integrate" the differences and failing, is to
split the effort and let each sub-constituency go on its merry way.
d/
--------------------
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg Consulting +1 408 246 8253
675 Spruce Dr. fax: +1 408 249 6205
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
dcrocker(_at_)mordor(_dot_)stanford(_dot_)edu