Subject: [HOKEY] Consensus call on emsk-hierarchy

From: Tim Polk <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 09:14:24 -0400

Folks,

After reviewing the email traffic (or lack thereof) on the emsk  
hierarchy
draft, I have decided to forward the document for IESG evaluation.   
While
consensus was rougher than I would have liked, I believe that we are
now recycling issues, and I do not see any point in additional energy
in the wg.   My sense of the wg from the meetings and from the email  
traffic
is that "the specification isn't broken so let's move on".

I have tried to represent the disagreement accurately but succintly  
in my
writeup for the IESG, and I sent additional email highlighting the  
issue and
encouraging the ADs to factor this into their review.  As an FYI,  
this is the
text from the writeup:

Working Group Summary

   The document represents rough consensus of the working group.  There
   is one issue where significant disagreements remain: the key  
hierarchy
   is richer than required to support  the hokey protocols.  Some  
working
   group participants felt the DSRK should be removed from this
   specification, leaving the definition to be defined when protocols  
that
   require a richer hierarchy are developed.  Other participants felt  
that
   specifying a rich hierarchy at this time was prudent.  They also  
felt that
   removing features at this stage would create an unreasonable delay.
   The AD reviewed recent traffic on the email list and believes that  
rough
   consensus exists to support progression of the current draft.

If anyone believes my writeup is inaccurate, I would appreciate the
feedback.

Thanks,

Tim Polk

_______________________________________________
HOKEY mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hokey

---

From: Charles Clancy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 21:33:12 -0400

Issue #45 closed.

-- 
t. charles clancy, ph.d.                 eng.umd.edu/~tcc
electrical & computer engineering, university of maryland