Subject: Re: [tcpm] Feedback request on draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-security

From: Alfred Hönes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:59:34 +0100 (MEZ)

Wes,
sorry, I'm seriously concerned, and I oppose strongly.

You wrote:

> There is a sentence that can simply be removed without any loss:
> "For some reason, much of the effort of the security community on the
> Internet protocols did not result in official documents (RFCs) being
> issued by the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force)."  This doesn't
> consider the fact that protocol specifications in the IETF and many
> (if not most) other SDOs are focused on producing interoperable
> specifications with implementation detail left to individual vendors
> to differentiate their products.  In the case of many of these TCP
> vulnerabilities under discussion, many clearly fall into the realm of
> implementation issues rather than protocol issues, and are thus outside
> the traditional scope of IETF process.  As nearly all of the vendors
> who have implemented these fixes participate in the IETF, it seems they
> haven't felt a compelling urge to have their implementation practices
> codified in RFCs.  At least explaining this seems more valuable than
> the nebulous "For some reason" which makes it sound like this is just
> a strange occurence with no clear explanation, though I believe the
> sentence can just be completely removed without any loss to the
> document.

Did you mean this all ironically?   (I can't believe that.)

This kind of arguing badly confuses reasons and results.

Shall it now really be impossible to speak out in a very polite
manner what happened in this WG?

Do you really not want to realize that so many folks do not contribute
any more to TCPM because work in this WG is continually obstructed?

The subject matter is not a matter of implementation details.
This is a matter of the experience in interoperable implementations
being silenced by stereotypous arguments over many years in this WG.

A message sent to this WG at Fri, 19 Feb 2010 15:22:49 -0800
once more concluded with:

> I have criticized these documents for proposing changes to standards;
> I do not have an issue with merely documenting those changes.

This clearly restates the goal of all this obstruction we had over
several years and that has caused so many folks to stop active
participation in this WG.
That's why this WG does not fulfill its mission and does not perform
actual maintenance of the protocols it pretends to shepherd.

I cannot imagine a more concise proof of the diagnose I had placed
in a recent posting.
As a mathematician, I can't resist to say:  Q.E.D.   !

It therefore now seems due to stop the exaggerated politeness
pretending not to know what has been going on and avoiding to spell
out the actual reasons for the lack of progress.
It is "the WG", who prohibits this, not _the WG at large_ that has
been silenced more and more.
Continuing to obfuscate this reason would be inhonest and a kind of
self-deception.

For me personally, it does not make much sense to waste time and
energy for further technical and editorial reasoning on documents
on this list, as long as the frequency of postings iterating the
same position ad nauseam and the voices of a few folks that happen
to attend many IETF meetings and get recruited to a WG sessions are
allowed to redefine the consensus of the WG and to take IETF WG
procedures ad absurdum.

Apparently the continued camouflage of the broken procedures need to
be stopped now visibly and publicly, or otherwise it would be better
to shut down this WG, the sooner the better.

I hereby request that the above quote from the TCP security draft be
actually clarified by making "For some reasons" much more explicit,
to spell out the truth and send out a clear message to the listeners:

|| "Because a small minority continually has happened to silence
||  interested parties in this WG and discouraged and distracted them
||  from contributing to constructive work to enhance the standards,
|   much of the effort of the security community on the Internet
|   protocols did not result in official documents (RFCs) being issued
|   by the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force)."

This sentence gives the guideline and motivation to continue work on
this document.  Stripping it off the document would be a stab in the
back of the author who has patiently sustained all the tortures so far.

I now expect a clear committment of the leadership that the personal
favorite "anti-tank obstacles" of one WG member that obstruct any
normative improvements be stopped.  It's almost only "the WG" who
always says he admits (other authors) to only document behavior of
the predominating code bases and who opposes to bring the Standards in
agreement with what has been proven much better working interoperably
in the current hostile environment of the Internet than the
'clean room' standards text cut in stone decades ago.

Please either shut down the WG now, or (what I would prefer much more)
encourage implementors to return and raise their voice again in the WG,
and commit to adhere to the principles Jari Arkko had recalled recently,
namely that the IETF should much more listen again to running code and
experience.

We also need such clear signals now for the IESG, that we want to
overcome the lethargy and revive the WG -- isn't it, Jari?

Kind regards,
  Alfred Hönes.

-- 

+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys.  |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18         |
| D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  [email-masked]                     |
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 15:26:05 -0800

Hi,

you are raising the serious accusation that the TCPM WG is dysfunctional. It will come as no surprise that I don't share this view.

Yes, the bar for changing TCP is high. TCP is one of the core protocols of the Internet, and the bar for changes *should* be high. I know you follow what is going on in other areas, and neither BGP, DNS, SIP or IP are easily modified. You might not like it, but this is a feature.

We've had several documents recently for which we discussed whether they should be on the Standards Track or not. In some cases, the WG decided for Informational, in other cases, for PS. The chairs called the consensus and the WG agreed.

Are the arguments in TCPM sometimes heated? Absolutely. But that is not a sign of a dysfunctional WG. It just means that the participants feel strongly about the particular technical issues.

Now, let me comment on some of your specific accusations.

> any more to TCPM because work in this WG is continually obstructed?

Please back this statement up. Who are the "many folks" who have stopped to contribute because the WG is "obstructed"?

> being silenced by stereotypous arguments over many years in this WG.

Interoperable implementations are one factor in the IETF standardization process. Rough WG consensus is another. The former does not trump the latter.

> participation in this WG.

You again insinuate that "many folks" have left the WG. Again, please back this up. You also imply that there is organized obstruction to TCP changes in the WG. Again, back this accusation up with data.

> actual maintenance of the protocols it pretends to shepherd.

The WG is publishing documents. There is intense discussion. The documents are of high quality. How exactly does the WG not fulfill its mission?

Yes, the WG does not take on all or even many of the proposals that are brought to it. This is a sign that the WG is taking its stewardship of the TCP protocol seriously.

> As a mathematician, I can't resist to say:  Q.E.D.   !

As a mathematician, you should know that you have not presented a proof. You have presented an argument.

> been silenced more and more.

There is no "WG at large". The TCPM WG is defined by the individuals that speak up on the TCPM list or in the meetings. Folks who would like to make changes to TCP need to invest the time and effort to convince the community of the value of those changes. Anyone can do so, and many folks do. It is simply false to say that anyone "has been silenced." 

> allowed to redefine the consensus of the WG and to take IETF WG

Nobody "gets recruited" for WG sessions. Like all other IETF WGs, participation is open.

More importantly, you claim that some group of people has "redefined" the WG consensus. This is a serious accusation against the chairs and me as AD. Please provide specific details or retract this accusation.

> Please either shut down the WG now, or (what I would prefer much more)

I'm not shutting the WG down. 

> encourage implementors to return and raise their voice again in the WG,

Implementors have been and continue to be welcome to bring proposals to the WG. I know that several WG participants are actively trying to encourage this. For example, the last time I personally did this was on February 16, when I contacted the proponents of the "TCP thin-stream detection" mechanism that is proposed for inclusion in the Linux kernel to write up their proposal for discussion in the IETF.

(And for the third time, you insinuate that implementors has left the WG, and I'm again asking you to back that statement up.)

> namely that the IETF should much more listen again to running code and

Running code is great. So is rough WG consensus. One does not trump the other.

Lars

---

From: "Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[ASRC AEROSPACE CORP]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 19:28:14 -0600

Hi Alfred, I think you misunderstand.  I'm simply correcting a sentence which makes it seem mysterious that the IETF hasn't taken many of the security patches that have been developed and codified them into RFCs.  I gave a clear explanation for this, and since a great deal of the patches in question predate the formation of TCPM and have never been brought to TCPM or any other WG, the rest of your message which is about that particular WG doesn't seem to be in the right context.  I was only talking about one sentence and the couple of decades of TCP evolution that the particular sentence is fuzzy on.  Does that make sense?

________________________________________
From: [email-masked] [[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 4:59 PM
To: Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[ASRC AEROSPACE CORP]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Feedback request on draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-security

Wes,

Kind regards,
  Alfred HÎnes.

--

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 22:58:24 -0300

Lars Eggert wrote:

> More importantly, you claim that some group of people has "redefined"
> the WG consensus. This is a serious accusation against the chairs and
> me as AD. Please provide specific details or retract this accusation.

Lars,

I had made this comment a month ago or so, and at the time I preferred
not to answer you "provide details" request, in the hope of looking
forward. However, given that this has been raised again, I'll respond
this time:

Earlier this year this working group was specifically polled about
adopting draft-gont-tcp-security as a WG item. The WG had unprecedented
strong consensus in this respect (with people even offering to spend
cycles on document review), and this consensus was even noted in the
slides the wg chairs used in the TCPM meeting at IETF 75 (see:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/tcpm-2/tcpm-2.htm).

At the meeting, you (IIRC) raised the question about whether we wanted
to work on this document, or start with a new one (!). -- basically
throwing out of the window the 2-year effort of writing the CPNI TCP
security assessment on which draft-ietf-tcp-security is based.

IMO, that's part of obstructing, and/or "not invented here" (NIH) syndrome.

FWIW, It's interesting to note that IAB's Gregory Lebovitz was there at
the TCPM meeting, and commented that "WGs don’t need drafts to 100%
right to become WG items". (and, btw, only two or three people at that
meeting said that they had actually read the document.)

After the meeting, you argued (off-list) that wg consensus (allegedly as
a result of IETF 75??!) was to submit a "fresh" (i.e., blank/brand-new)
document, when we already had consensus *before* the meeting, on the
*mailing-list* (as the IETF mandates it should be) for adopting
draft-gont-tcp-security. You even suggested that tcpm should assemble "a
team of editors" (when you should have probably made this observation
for the non-progressing tcp-ao, rather than for this newly adopted I-D).

Last, but not least, anybody interested in the meeting I'm referring to
are advised to listen to the meeting recordings, rather than reading the
tcpm meeting minutes.

Another instance (but this one older, and in tsvwg):
I could also mention that when tsvwg was polled years ago (you were
co-chair of that wg at the time) about adopting
draft-larsen-port-randomization (now draft-ietf-port-randomization) as a
wg item, at some point something like 5+ people were supporting the
adoption of the document as a tsvwg item (targeting *std* track)... but
you mentioned that that didn't represent wg consensus.
Then the voice of three people (yours included) changed the target from
Std track to BCP. (And no... I'm not arguing that std track was more
correct than bcp. I'm just arguing that the process, and your view of
"consensus", are not clear to me).

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [email-masked] || [email-masked]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 19:22:00 -0800

Hi,

On 2010-3-1, at 17:58, Fernando Gont wrote:
> forward.

the exact phrasing in your earlier email was that I "seemed to ignore WG consensus". Alfred now says that I "redefined" WG consensus. Both are very serious accusations. I believe that I did not mishandle things here (see below for details), but I'm obviously biased. I encourage others to speak up.

If you really believe I acted improperly, please start a recall petition. Otherwise, please stop accusing me of misconduct and apologize. This is the last email I'm going to send on this topic.

> However, given that this has been raised again, I'll respond
> this time:

Thank you. 

> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/tcpm-2/tcpm-2.htm).

no disagreement so far - there was strong consensus to adopt a work item on describing a security assessment of various TCP aspects.

> to work on this document, or start with a new one (!).

I don't think this is quit accurate. What happens when a WG takes on new work is that they decide to take on a work item, and then they decide which individual document (if any) can be adopted as the basis for progressing this work item forward.

As I said, there was strong consensus to take on the work item. When we discussed whether the CNPI document was a good starting point, I wanted to make it clear that we'd be taking on a very substantial piece of text that had already been published.

If I recall correctly, the WG did discuss for a while if there would be any argument for basically republishing the CNPI document through the IETF, and my take away from the discussion was that the WG felt that an IETF document in this space should say something more or differently than what the CNPI document had said.

That's why we arrived at the decision to come to consensus on an new document structure first and then merge in content from the (long) CNPI document in a piecemeal fashion.

> -- basically

The CNPI document is published. Nothing the IETF can do invalidates the effort that went into it. Starting with a different outline (that's what the WG decided on) and merging in content from the CNPI document is not "throwing out the window" all that effort.

> IMO, that's part of obstructing, and/or "not invented here" (NIH) syndrome.

But neither of the two (irrespective of whether they are true or not) are indicative of me ignoring WG consensus.

The discussion of whether to adopt this specific draft as a basis for the work item (and in which form) was still in full swing on the list and during the meeting week. Sure, I spoke up during this discussion. But that's not ignoring WG consensus.

> meeting said that they had actually read the document.)

It may be interesting to note, but it is unrelated to the accusation you make.

> document

The WG consensus after IETF-75 *was* to start with a new document structure. That's why after IETF-75, you posted a revision that contained just the outline and we discussed it. See http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm/current/msg04813.html and follow-ups.

> , when we already had consensus *before* the meeting, on the
> draft-gont-tcp-security.

The discussion started in http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm/current/msg04641.html was still in full swing during IETF-75 - the chairs had not declared consensus. That happened at the end of IETF-75: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm/current/msg04777.html

> You even suggested that tcpm should assemble "a
> team of editors"

Yes, probably. As I said during the meeting, I believe that this would be the largest work item in TCPM in terms of effort, so strong support is required.

> (when you should have probably made this observation

Irrelevant for the discussion at hand.

> are advised to listen to the meeting recordings, rather than reading the

What specifically in the audio recordings backs up your accusation that is not also in the minutes? You're making the accusation that I'm ignoring WG consensus, so it's on you to provide the data.

To summarize (because below is about a different instance): I have seen no evidence that I mishandled anything in this case. But I'm obviously biased. I encourage others to speak up. 

> "consensus", are not clear to me).

If you want to make that accusation, please dig through the minutes to back this up with facts to make a case, instead of giving an anecdotal summary. I will point out that I acted as chair during the adoption of an individual document as a WG work item, and it is normal procedure to try and determine what the correct document type would be. The consensus is what concludes this process, and it is called by the chairs (three in this case).  

If you really believe I acted improperly, please start a recall petition. Otherwise, please stop accusing me of misconduct and apologize. This is the last email I'm going to send on this topic.

Lars

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 01:55:45 -0300

Lars Eggert wrote:

>> Do you really not want to realize that so many folks do not
>> contribute any more to TCPM because work in this WG is continually
>> obstructed?
> 
> Please back this statement up. Who are the "many folks" who have
> stopped to contribute because the WG is "obstructed"?

Some of them have made statements on the mailing-list. See, e.g., this
note by OpenBSD's Theo de Raadt, circa 2005
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm/current/msg01233.html):

>> And maybe by the time we get anywhere, no one will care about the resulting 
>> document, because they will have already solved them (with a "draft", 
>> unfortunately): people want their problems to be solved. They don't care 
>> about labelling their products with "RFC-compliance".
> 
> OpenBSD's tcp-ip stack is not RFC compliant.
> 
> And we are very proud that it is not RFC compliant.
> 
> Beause if it was RFC compliant it would be so vulnerable to so many
> well known attacks.
> 
> IETF is so misguided these days.  Attempts at quality have been thrown
> out the window, and a couple of old farts (mostly with corporate ties)
> run the show to the detriment of a society which needs this stuff to
> work as well as possible.
> 
> Joe, it is people like you keeping TCP broken.

And this other e-mail by Theo de Raadt
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm/current/msg01232.html):

>> For the connection-reset attack, the proposed attack-specific fix is to 
>> treat hard errors as soft errors.
>> BTW, TCP SHOULD (*not* "MUST") abort the connections.
> 
> This is just so ridicilous.
> 
> Any network stack that follows your advice is busted.
> 
> Why do you persist in being so behind the times?

P.S: This last statement by Theo was a response to Joe Touch in one of
the endless threads about the ICMP attacks draft.

Thanks,

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 02:14:18 -0300

Lars Eggert wrote:

>> adopting draft-gont-tcp-security as a WG item. The WG had
>> unprecedented strong consensus in this respect (with people even
>> offering to spend cycles on document review), and this consensus
>> was even noted in the slides the wg chairs used in the TCPM meeting
>> at IETF 75 (see: 
> no disagreement so far - there was strong consensus to adopt a work
> item on describing a security assessment of various TCP aspects.

No. The poll was about adopting draft-gont-tcpm-tcp-security as a wg
item. Please dig the archives.

> If I recall correctly, the WG did discuss for a while if there would
> be any argument for basically republishing the CNPI document through
> the IETF, and my take away from the discussion was that the WG felt
> that an IETF document in this space should say something more or
> differently than what the CNPI document had said.

This is not what the 8+ people that supported this I-D on this
mailing-list said.

> That's why we arrived at the decision to come to consensus on an new
> document structure first and then merge in content from the (long)
> CNPI document in a piecemeal fashion.

Again. This is not true. WG consensus was called for adopting of
draft-gont-tcpm-tcp-security. Look at the mailing-list archives.

> But neither of the two (irrespective of whether they are true or not)
> are indicative of me ignoring WG consensus.
> 
> The discussion of whether to adopt this specific draft as a basis for
> the work item (and in which form) was still in full swing on the list
> and during the meeting week. Sure, I spoke up during this discussion.
> But that's not ignoring WG consensus.

That's not correct.

>> After the meeting, you argued (off-list) that wg consensus
>> (allegedly as a result of IETF 75??!) was to submit a "fresh"
>> (i.e., blank/brand-new) document
> 
> The WG consensus after IETF-75 *was* to start with a new document
> structure. 

Consensus was arrived on the mailing-list, as it should be. And
consensus was for adopting draft-gont-tcpm-tcp-security.

> That's why after IETF-75, you posted a revision that
> contained just the outline and we discussed it. See
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm/current/msg04813.html and
> follow-ups.

That's incorrect. I posted a rev that only included the stuff that we
wanted to discuss. This was suggested by the chairs, as they felt that
some implementers might implement whatever they found in the document,
even if some stuff had not yet been discussed by the wg.

Zeroing part of the document had nothing to do with "start with a
clean-slate" or the like.

> The discussion started in
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm/current/msg04641.html was
> still in full swing during IETF-75 - the chairs had not declared
> consensus. That happened at the end of IETF-75:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm/current/msg04777.html
> 
>> You even suggested that tcpm should assemble "a team of editors"
> 
> Yes, probably. As I said during the meeting, I believe that this
> would be the largest work item in TCPM in terms of effort, so strong
> support is required.

The document already had strong support. Unprecedentedly 8+ people
supported the I-D, and volunteered to help.

But I'm afraid that if we play the (sadly) typical game of "TCP need not
be implemented in a secure way!", followed by "start with a
clean-slate", followed by "let's change the outline", followed by...
most of these people will get tired, and the effort will vanish... and
the specs will continue to be outdated as they are.

Thanks,

---

From: Alexander Zimmermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 11:02:57 +0100

Dear Alfred,

> actual maintenance of the protocols it pretends to shepherd.

this is the second time that I read such a statement from you. It's
simply not true. The WG performs maintenance... What's about

RFC 5681 - TCP Congestion Control => Maintenance
RFC 5682 - F-RTO => Maintenance
draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis => Maintenance
draft-paxson-tcpm-rfc2988bis  => Maintenance
draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpmss => Maintenance
draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-auth-opt => Maintenance
draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-lcd => Maintenance in a broader sense
draft-ietf-tcpm-sack-recovery-entry => Maintenance
...

You should not tar everything with the same brush, only because you are
dissatisfied with the progress of one (or two) particular ID.

> namely that the IETF should much more listen again to running code and

The WG listens to running code. For example
"draft-ietf-tcpm-sack-recovery-entry": The author Ilpo Jarvinen is currently
the most active TCP Linux implementer!

//
// Dipl.-Inform. Alexander Zimmermann
// Department of Computer Science, Informatik 4
// RWTH Aachen University
// Ahornstr. 55, 52056 Aachen, Germany
// phone: (49-241) 80-21422, fax: (49-241) 80-22220
// email: [email-masked]
// web: http://www.umic-mesh.net
//

---

From: "Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[ASRC AEROSPACE CORP]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 10:04:56 -0600

My reading of the consensus, as a WG co-chair, was
100% consistent with what Lars has explained.  Since
the -00 and -01 WG versions of the document also
reflect that, I had thought the editor was on-board
with that plan to make progress.

Originally, in addition to support for the work, there
was caution raised that the prescribed behaviors be
each closely looked at.  Since the pre-WG document does
not identify individual recommendations nor is it
reasonable to expect the full content of a 136-page
document to be immediately vetted and sucked into the
WG product, the path of taking pieces of it to be
worked into the WG product is a logical and straight
forward way to arrive at a quality product with clear
support for the detailed content.

That said, if the WG wants to change its mind, that
is certainly an option for discussion, but it's not
productive at all to get into tangents with wild
accusations and suggestions that the WG be closed.

--
Wes Eddy
MTI Systems

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
>Lars Eggert
>Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 10:22 PM
>To: Fernando Gont
>Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked] WG; The IESG
>the exact phrasing in your earlier email was that I "seemed to ignore WG
>consensus". Alfred now says that I "redefined" WG consensus. Both are
>very serious accusations. I believe that I did not mishandle things here
>(see below for details), but I'm obviously biased. I encourage others to
>speak up.
>
>If you really believe I acted improperly, please start a recall
>petition. Otherwise, please stop accusing me of misconduct and
>apologize. This is the last email I'm going to send on this topic.
>
>unprecedented
>no disagreement so far - there was strong consensus to adopt a work item
>on describing a security assessment of various TCP aspects.
>
>I don't think this is quit accurate. What happens when a WG takes on new
>work is that they decide to take on a work item, and then they decide
>which individual document (if any) can be adopted as the basis for
>progressing this work item forward.
>
>As I said, there was strong consensus to take on the work item. When we
>discussed whether the CNPI document was a good starting point, I wanted
>to make it clear that we'd be taking on a very substantial piece of text
>that had already been published.
>
>If I recall correctly, the WG did discuss for a while if there would be
>any argument for basically republishing the CNPI document through the
>IETF, and my take away from the discussion was that the WG felt that an
>IETF document in this space should say something more or differently
>than what the CNPI document had said.
>
>document structure first and then merge in content from the (long) CNPI
>document in a piecemeal fashion.
>
>> -- basically
>The CNPI document is published. Nothing the IETF can do invalidates the
>effort that went into it. Starting with a different outline (that's what
>the WG decided on) and merging in content from the CNPI document is not
>"throwing out the window" all that effort.
>
>> the TCPM meeting, and commented that "WGs don't need drafts to 100%
>structure. That's why after IETF-75, you posted a revision that
>The discussion started in http://www.ietf.org/mail-
>archive/web/tcpm/current/msg04641.html was still in full swing during
>IETF-75 - the chairs had not declared consensus. That happened at the
>end of IETF-75: http://www.ietf.org/mail-
>archive/web/tcpm/current/msg04777.html
>
>Yes, probably. As I said during the meeting, I believe that this would
>be the largest work item in TCPM in terms of effort, so strong support
>is required.
>
>What specifically in the audio recordings backs up your accusation that
>is not also in the minutes? You're making the accusation that I'm
>ignoring WG consensus, so it's on you to provide the data.
>
>To summarize (because below is about a different instance): I have seen
>no evidence that I mishandled anything in this case. But I'm obviously
>biased. I encourage others to speak up.
>
>If you want to make that accusation, please dig through the minutes to
>back this up with facts to make a case, instead of giving an anecdotal
>summary. I will point out that I acted as chair during the adoption of
>an individual document as a WG work item, and it is normal procedure to
>try and determine what the correct document type would be. The consensus
>is what concludes this process, and it is called by the chairs (three in
>this case).
>
>If you really believe I acted improperly, please start a recall
>petition. Otherwise, please stop accusing me of misconduct and
>apologize. This is the last email I'm going to send on this topic.
>
>Lars

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:55:37 -0300

Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[ASRC AEROSPACE CORP] wrote:

> each closely looked at.  

Yes. Isn't this *always* the case for any document that is accepted? For
instance, the motivation of bringing this to the IETF was, in part, to
have more eyes evaluating the requirements.

And as noted before, an I-D does not need to be perfect to be accepted
by a wg. For instance, that's why it's a draft.

> Since the pre-WG document does

I personally believe that this is a reasonable approach for making
progress with this document. But this is different from what Lars was
arguing.

Anyway... time to move on, I think...