Re: sasl in beep or payload

RE: sasl in beep or payloadmike - the problem here is the wording of the
questions that Stephen asked the group.

whether intentionally or not, he specifically disenfranchised the majority
of the folks in the room by limiting the sample set to those people actively
planning to implement.

i am sympathetic to trying to focus on the implementors (and have used the
technique several times both as a chair and an area director), but it
requires a larger sample set in order to be meaningful.

perhaps i was too subtle in my original comment on this, viz.,

> From: "Marshall Rose" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 17:26
>
> > Around 15 hands were raised in response to the question: "how
> > many are likely to implement sacred". Of those, all but one
> > agreed with the proposition that we should include the sasl
> > PDUs in the sacred payload. So, the concensus at the meeting
> > is to add new messages along the lines of the bind request
> > and response from Magnus' posting.
> >
> > If there are enough people unhappy with this, I'll start a
> > straw poll on the list in a few days so we can sort it out.
>
> stephen - this analysis simply isn't germane (nor is the sampling
> methodology, but that's another issue).

and perhaps dave is too direct. but, there is a fundamental problem here.

you had a fair number of people (at least five, not counting dave and i)
with serious ietf and applications experience saying "no, no, no", and the
question got asked in such a way that only one of those could express an
opinion. that person, by the way, was the one who dissented from the other's
who were allowed to express an opinion.

perhaps if you view it from that perspective, you may understand why dave is
pushing back...

/mtr

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Mike Just
  To: 'Dave Crocker' ; [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected]
  Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 08:55
  Subject: RE: sasl in beep or payload


  Dave,

  I kind of thought that Stephen was working on rough consensus - and doing
it quite well and fairly. Hands were raised at the meeting; it seemed pretty
clear.  The discussion was taken to the list and Stephen cited the
discussion on the list which, at the current time, does not have consensus
to contradict what was said at the meeting (and stated in the minutes).
Stephen was only relaying that information the best he could. It's
unfortunate that you've misinterpreted this.

  Mike



  > -----Original Message-----
  > From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email protected]]
  > Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 11:36 AM
  > To: [email protected]
  > Cc: [email protected]
  > Subject: Re: sasl in beep or payload
  >
  >
  >
  > At 04:12 PM 12/19/2001 +0000, Stephen Farrell wrote:
  > >Well, I don't think so. A week ago I posted [1], and only
  > Marshall (and
  > >now you) seemed to differ from that. If others do, then I'd
  > have hoped
  > >they'd have spoken up by now.
  >
  > Stephen,
  >
  > The principle of having a chair declare a decision and wait
  > for objections
  > is well-established in the IETF.  However, to succeed, the use of the
  > technique needs to have some basis in the recent history of
  > the working
  > group.
  >
  > For example, it is not reasonable for a chair to literally
  > ignore arguments
  > they dislike and declare a decision that they DO like.
  >
  > That you are both editor and chair, involving a matter of
  > some controversy,
  > is a point that needs to concern you a great deal.
  >
  > As to the lack of response to your declaration, alternative
  > explanations are:
  >
  > 1.  Post-IETF syndrome.
  >
  > 2.  Shock at the arbitrary (and frankly self-serving) declaration,
  > resulting is a feeling that it is not worth commenting, since serious
  > issues and serious points of view are going to be ignored by
  > the chairs.
  >
  > I'll also add that the reason I did not post anything earlier
  > was that I
  > sent my comments to the ADs, suggesting they fix the rather abherrent
  > process that is clearly present in this working group.
  >
  >
  > > > In fact I seem to recall a presentation that argued for
  > this re-use.
  > >
  > >Yes (and I liked your presentaion btw). There was also another one
  > >(Magnus') calling for a quite different approach.
  >
  > You appear to be offering that as an excuse for literally
  > ignoring the
  > presentation you did not like.
  >
  >
  > > > Please note that if the working group takes the very
  > strong AD guidance to
  > > > choose a single "transport" then there is no reason at
  > all to create sasl
  > > > integration into the application, unless the working
  > group chooses a
  > > > "transport" that does not already supply that functionality.
  > >
  > >I have some sympathy for this myself, but judging by the raised
  > >hands, the consensus amongst those who'd implement sacred was to
  > >include the sasl pdus in the payload.
  >
  > I commend to you some study in survey research methodology
  > and statistical
  > sampling an analysis.
  >
  > d/
  >
  >
  > ----------
  > Dave Crocker  <mailto:[email protected]>
  > Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
  > tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464
  >