Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-smime-cms-mult-sign (CryptographicMessageSyntax(CMS) MultipleSignerClarification) to Proposed Standard

From: "Denis Pinkas" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:16:28 +0100

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 is or is not possible or whether procedures
are being followed, a two-week Last Call is, IMO, inappropriate
and inconsistent with the spirit of the provisions in RFC 2026.

    john

--On Wednesday, 07 February, 2007 10:20 -0500 The IESG
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> The IESG has received a request from the Internet Engineering
> Steering  Group (iesg) to consider the following document:
> 
> - 'Guidance on Area Director Sponsoring of Documents '
>    <draft-iesg-sponsoring-guidelines-01.txt> as an
> Informational RFC
> 
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
> solicits final comments on this action.  Please send
> substantive comments to the [email-masked] mailing lists by
> 2007-02-21. Exceptionally,  comments may be sent to
> [email-masked] instead. In either case, please  retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "Denis Pinkas" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:16:28 +0100

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 vity 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.

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

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

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