Subject: Re: [idn] SUMMARY: reordering strawpoll

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 21:19:22 -0500

> The chair's stated purpose in asking for comments was to try to get
> additional feedback on the interpretation of the results of the poll. Do
> you think this is improper? How do you think the wg should move
> procedurally to resolve this issue? James obviously feels that he
> shouldn't just declare re-ordering to be dead by fiat, and yet it
> is clearly outnumbered.

I think the conduct of the chairs (in this instance) is the consequence
of holding a snap poll, without thinking through the set of outcomes.
What in heaven's name made a "poll" prior to a second reading of the draft
the best idea available?

The rough consensus (and the occasionally overlooked working code) process
can't resolve every division.

I've outlined how the editors of the affected drafts can proceed.

> Obviously ACE versioning would allow re-ordering as an optional feature. But
> this doesn't really satisfy the people who objected on the basis of complexity,
> does it?

Nope.

...
> Sorry, I can't understand this. Can't you say things more simply?

If yes, (versioning) then the working docs delta, for example, a scope rule
may be required, this was [35] in the requirements draft, versions 4, and
[30] in versions 5 and 6, so that scopes may be associated with versions.

If no, then the working docs divide into parallel texts, with "this assumes
reording" and "this assumes no reordering" disclaimers, and each set of
documents proceeds.

Eric

---

From: David Hopwood <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 03:09:55 +0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote:
> Bruce Thomson wrote:
> > Obviously ACE versioning would allow re-ordering as an optional feature.
> > But this doesn't really satisfy the people who objected on the basis of
> > complexity, does it?
> 
> Nope.

Indeed it wouldn't.

> [30] in versions 5 and 6, so that scopes may be associated with versions.

I feel it necessary to point out that versioning of ACE algorithms is not
part of any documented proposal, and it introduces even more problems than
reordering does.

The options that were put forward were:
 - a fixed ACE algorithm (provisionally AMC-Z) with reordering,
 - a fixed ACE algorithm (provisionally AMC-Z) without reordering.

If anyone wants to propose any other option, they should write a detailed
spec for it. Otherwise, it is the chairs' responsibility to interpret the
consensus of the group as supporting exactly one of these two options
(subject to the RFC 2026 appeals process, of course).

- -- 
David Hopwood <[email-masked]>

Home page & PGP public key: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hopwood/
RSA 2048-bit; fingerprint 71 8E A6 23 0E D3 4C E5  0F 69 8C D4 FA 66 15 01
Nothing in this message is intended to be legally binding. If I revoke a
public key but refuse to specify why, it is because the private key has been
seized under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act; see www.fipr.org/rip

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 04:44:24 -0500

> (subject to the RFC 2026 appeals process, of course).

So in your mind, a strawpoll is a consensus call?