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

No Subject

From owner-spki@c2.net  Fri Aug 21 20: 53:18 1998
Return-Path: <owner-spki@c2.net>
Received: from blacklodge.c2.net (blacklodge.c2.net [])
	by lox.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA11648
	for <mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 20:53:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by blacklodge.c2.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id RAA19899 for spki-outgoing; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 17:16:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Lotus-FromDomain: CERTICOM
From: "Paul Lambert" <plambert@certicom.com>
To: Steve Bellovin <smb@research.att.com>
cc: spki@c2.net
Message-ID: <88256664.0076396B.00@domino2.certicom.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 17:04:54 -0700
Subject: Re: SPKI meeting at Chicago?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: owner-spki@c2.net
Precedence: bulk
X-Filtered-By: NoCeM-E v0.6 (http://www.novia.net/~doumakes)
Resent-To: spki-archive@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca
Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 21:00:09 -0400
Resent-From: "Michael C. Richardson" <mcr@istari.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>


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


1) Create an SPKI archive.  This is required for all IETF working groups
   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
   There does not seem to be enough support for any standards track
   If support appears, the updated specifications could be progressed.
3) Determine if the working should disband or try again with more focused

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.


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
Subject:  Re: SPKI meeting at Chicago?

In message <5731E91FCE0ED211B05B0020484016A32865C0@RBMAIL103>, "Flanigan,
> 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.