Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id EAA11445; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 04:05:07 -0500 (EST) Received: by cs.cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Mon, 15 Feb 1999 04:03:53 -0500 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK) id EAA11303; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 04:03:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from out0.mx.skynet.be (out0.mx.skynet.be [195.238.2.35]) by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id EAA11289; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 04:03:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from [194.78.31.228] ([194.78.31.228]) by out0.mx.skynet.be (8.9.1/jovi-relay-2.0b1) with SMTP id KAA17336; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:03:27 +0100 (MET) X-Mailer: CTM PowerMail 2.4b2 X-URL: http://www.skynet.be x-sender: blk@foxbert.skynet.be Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:03:30 +0100 To: ietf@ietf.org CC: drums@cs.utk.edu, iesg@ietf.org From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: DRUMS procedural problems: a case study Message-Id: <19990215100330.003845@relay.skynet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: On Mon, Feb 15, 1999, D. J. Bernstein wrote: >In cases where the rest of us disagree with the editor, the burden is on >us to (1) continue raising objections until the DRUMS management agrees >to allow the issue at an in-person meeting, (2) prove consensus at the >meeting, and (3) object again when the editor ignores the consensus. So, according to Dan logic, "the rest of us" == 1, namely you. With math logic like that, it's a wonder your crypto code compiles at all, much less actually protects anything. It seems to me that you are the one who is bound and determined to define molehill == mountain, and not just any mountain, but Mount Everest. Yes, there has actually now been one person who has stepped forward and said that they preferred the old logic. And if we get another person or two to step forward and say something along the same lines, then maybe this is something we need to revisit. Myself, I would much prefer being extremely explicit in the grammar, but that's just my personal preference. However *no* one has stepped forward to say one word about the way that the consensus was reached, especially that there is some sort of cabal whereby certain people guarantee that they get what they want in the standard, and that you (poor little helpless defenseless child that you are) can't get your own temper-tantrums satisfied by having your own way on everything. If there were wide agreement with your ideas, we would certainly hear about them from the other members. In fact, if there were even sparse agreement, I'm sure we'd hear about them. Hell, every once in a blue moon, I actually find myself agreeing with you, although God only knows why. The fact that no one has stepped forward to confirm your Oliver Stone-esque conspiracy theories would tend to indicate that they are just the ravings of a lunatic, a fact about your behaviour which I doubt is likely to surprise any of us. -- These are my opinions -- not to be taken as official Skynet policy ____________________________________________________________________ |o| Brad Knowles, Belgacom Skynet NV/SA |o| |o| Systems Architect, News/mail/FTP Admin Rue Col. Bourg, 124 |o| |o| Phone/Fax: +32-2-706.11.11/12.49 B-1140 Brussels |o| |o| http://www.skynet.be Belgium |o| \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ The Sky is no longer the limit