Subject: draft-ietf-pkix-sonof3039 is Approved

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:35:30 -0500

Denis:

After WG Last Call was closed, you submitted 38 comments.  These comments 
were not ignored, they were considered during IETF Last Call.  Stefan 
Santesson posted a detailed response of each of your comments on January 
30th.  This message was sent to PKIX mail list.

Stefan met with you in Barcelona during the ETSI meeting and explained the 
changes that were made.  Stefan reported that you seemed happy, except you 
expressed a wish to add something to the security considerations 
section.  Stefan asked for you to contribute text, but it never came, well 
at least not before today.

Steve Kent sent the attached note confirming that the PKIX WG had reached 
consensus.  Steve confirms that all of you comments were considered, 
although not all of them were accepted.

The revised document was posted as draft-ietf-pkix-sonof3039-05, and that 
document was reviewed by the IESG for the telechat last Thursday.  The IESG 
approved the document, with one point needing to be cleared up.  That point 
was cleared up last Saturday.

The secretariat should be sending an approval announcement today.

If you were not happy with the way that your comments were handled, you 
should have spoken up long before today.

Russ

>Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:46:43 -0500
>To: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
>From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
>Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pkix-sonof3039-03.txt
>Cc: "Stefan Santesson" <[email-masked]>, "Tim Polk" <[email-masked]>,
>    "Magnus Nystrom" <[email-masked]>, Stephen  Kent <[email-masked]>
>
>Russ,
>
>>
>>>Would this be OK or do I need to get consensus with Denis an all 38
>>>items on the list :-)
>>
>>We need Tim and Steve to be involved in this process.  They are the ones 
>>that need to determine 'rough consensus' for this document.  I need to be 
>>satisfied that Last Call comments have been considered and resolved 
>>without breaking the rough consensus.  To this end, I want to see a 
>>response to each comment posted to the PKIX list. This will allow others 
>>to object if the change breaks the consensus.
>
>I am satisfied that the WG, based on the mail on the list, is satisfied 
>with the version of 3039bis that we now have.  Denis's issues have been 
>dealt with, or at least considered, and we can proceed.
>
>Steve

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 15:26:32 -0500

Denis:

Steve Bellovin reminded me that RFC 2418 provides guidance in this 
area.  It says:

    3.3. Session management

    Working groups make decisions through a "rough consensus" process.
    IETF consensus does not require that all participants agree although
    this is, of course, preferred.  In general, the dominant view of the
    working group shall prevail.  (However, it must be noted that
    "dominance" is not to be determined on the basis of volume or
    persistence, but rather a more general sense of agreement.) Consensus
    can be determined by a show of hands, humming, or any other means on
    which the WG agrees (by rough consensus, of course).  Note that 51%
    of the working group does not qualify as "rough consensus" and 99% is
    better than rough.  It is up to the Chair to determine if rough
    consensus has been reached.

Unanimity is not required for rough consensus.  Steve Kent pointed out in 
his message that all of your comments were considered, even thought they 
were not all accepted.

I think it is time to move along.  I think we are done with Son Of  RFC 
3039, and nothing in this thread has convinced me otherwise.  Of course, 
you are free to submit an appeal if he feels strongly to the contrary.

Russ

---

From: "Stefan Santesson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 20:01:45 -0000

Denis,

Some corrections below;

/Stefan

Stefan Santesson
Program Manager, Windows Security
Principal Consultant, Microsoft Denmark

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]
> On Behalf Of Denis Pinkas
> Sent: den 23 februari 2004 17:59
> To: Russ Housley
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-pkix-sonof3039 is Approved
> 
> 
> Russ,
> 
> > Denis:
> 
> > After WG Last Call was closed, you submitted 38 comments.  These
> > comments were not ignored, they were considered during IETF Last
Call.
> > Stefan Santesson posted a detailed response of each of your comments
on
> > January 30th.  This message was sent to PKIX mail list.
> 
> > Stefan met with you in Barcelona during the ETSI meeting and
explained
> > the changes that were made.  Stefan reported that you seemed happy,
> 
> Stefan made a wrong report.

No I didn't I expressed my impression. My impression was that we left
each other in Barcelona in some good space with a feeling of having
agreed on all important issues.

Yes I knew that you still might have some issues but you were supposed
to e-mail them to me. I have seen nothing from you.

> 
> The best way to ask if someone is pleased or not is to ask him, and
wait
> for
> the reply (or else use an acknowledge of receipt and wait). At the
> Barcelona
> meeting, Stefan DID know that I was not pleased with the resolution he
> proposed to many of my comments.
> 
> I offered him to discuss the comments during the evenings, but Stefan
> prefred to go hiking in the evening on the Barcelona hills.
> 

And I offered you to work between 8 - 9 a.m. before the ETSI meeting but
you choose to sleep, as you apparently have chosen during the majority
of the development of this draft.

> Fine it is his choice. I also proposed Thursday, but Stefan prefered
to
> take
> a flight on the Wednesday evening. It was HIS choice, not mine.
> 
> In th eonly "evening" (he left at 5:20 p.m.) he ahd available Stefan
> wanted
> to give priority to discuss the ISO DTC 6 about X.509 with Jane Hill,
so
> we
> spent the time he had available only on that topic. 

It was my choice to start with this discussion because agreement on this
issue had high impact on our discussion of RFC 3039bis. It was YOUR
decision to continue to work on that issue after reaching concensus,
despite knowing my time constraints.

> We did not discussed my
> comments on sonof3039.

That is a pure lie (or just bad memory). We actually went quite a bit
through the list of comments and their resolution in draft 05. We ended
somewhere in the discussion of the qc-compliance declarations but jumped
to the overall picture and the key-usage issues where you wanted to have
rewording of the security considerations section.

> > except you expressed a wish to add something to the security
> > considerations section.  Stefan asked for you to contribute text,
but it
> > never came, well at least not before today.
> 
> I do not have such a request from Stefan.

Again, a lie or just bad memory. I asked you, and you responded
confirmatively, that you would provide me with a new proposed text for
the security considerations section. I stand by that I will try to help
to any reasonable extent to get such text in the final RFC, if accepted
by the IESG.

> 
> > Steve Kent sent the attached note confirming that the PKIX WG had
> > reached consensus.  Steve confirms that all of you comments were
> > considered, although not all of them were accepted.
> 
> I have not seen nor received the note from Steve since it was not
posted
> to
> the PKIX Mailing list !
> 
> > The revised document was posted as draft-ietf-pkix-sonof3039-05, and
> > that document was reviewed by the IESG for the telechat last
Thursday.
> 
> I have not been informed.
> 
> > The IESG approved the document, with one point needing to be cleared
> > up.  That point was cleared up last Saturday.
> >
> I do not think that Stefan made a fair report of what happened in
> Barcelona.
> So what follows is not a fair process.

I have not made any such report. I have just given you a fair chance to
state your issues and promptly responded to any issues you have made
public or made known to me.

I'm still not aware of what your problems are - after the response to
you - other than those I have mentioned.

> 
> The usual procedure is to try to solve all comments, and this process
> takes
> some time.
> 
> So why is this draft going so fast while others are waiting months or
even
> years for approval ? Is it because ... ?
> 
> I also notice that the mail from Steve is on February 2, so well
BEFORE
> the
> Barcelona meeting which finished on February 12 th.
> 
> Coming back on the mailing list 11 days after the end of that meeting
> seems
> perfectly reasonable to me.
> 
> I would like you to report these facts at the IESG level and that the
> IESG,
> taking notice of these *facts*, reconsiders his position.
> 
> Denis
> 
> 
> 
> > Russ
> >
> >
> >>> We need Tim and Steve to be involved in this process.  They are
the
> >>> ones that need to determine 'rough consensus' for this document.
I
> >>> need to be satisfied that Last Call comments have been considered
and
> >>> resolved without breaking the rough consensus.  To this end, I
want
> >>> to see a response to each comment posted to the PKIX list. This
will
> >>> allow others to object if the change breaks the consensus.
> >>
> >>
> >> I am satisfied that the WG, based on the mail on the list, is
> >> satisfied with the version of 3039bis that we now have.  Denis's
> >> issues have been dealt with, or at least considered, and we can
> proceed.
> >>
> >> Steve
> >>
> >
> >
>