[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: SPKI meeting at Chicago?


Steve,

On your question:

>Are there major open issues with the current drafts?

Yes. I do not belive that the current drafts effectively meet the initial
goals of the working group.  I do not feel that the exisitng drafts
represent a useful set of speficiations that would or should be implemented
for real world

Recommendations:

1) Create an SPKI archive.  This is required for all IETF working groups
and
   is not currently supported for SPKI.  Much of the value in the working
   group is in the e-mail discussions.  All of these contributions are lost
    if they are placed in a publicly availabe archive
2) Publish the exisiting RFCs as experimental specifications as soon as
possible.
   There does not seem to be enough support for any standards track
activity.
   If support appears, the updated specifications could be progressed.
3) Determine if the working should disband or try again with more focused
   requirements.

I feel that this is still a very important work area.  New work and real
implementations are being held back by having "nearly published"
specifications.  I would hope that work would continue, perhaps in the form
of a SPKItng.

Paul






Steve Bellovin <smb@research.att.com> on 08/18/98 11:11:33 AM

To:   "Flanigan, Bill" <flanigab@ncr.disa.mil>
cc:   "'perry@piermont.com'" <perry@piermont.com>, Anne Anderson - Sun
      Microsystems <Anne.Anderson@East.Sun.COM>, spki@c2.net (bcc: Paul
      Lambert/Certicom)
Subject:  Re: SPKI meeting at Chicago?




In message <5731E91FCE0ED211B05B0020484016A32865C0@RBMAIL103>, "Flanigan,
Bill"
 writes:
> But Perry, we haven't seen you since, I think, last year.  And Don only
> showed up once in the past few meetings.  Is this a WG or a self-renewing
> BOF?  Or is it sunset time?

Things are progressing.  But I received requests from several key
members of the group, including Carl Ellison -- our primary document
editor -- to consider whether or not we really needed to meet this
time, given the conflict with CRYPTO.  I posted this information to
the mailing list quite some time ago; I saw no objections.

But you're right that it's time to consider where we're going from here.
Are there major open issues with the current drafts?  It would be nice
to publish and wind down.
Follow-Ups: