[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: KeyNote draft available
Steve Bellovin writes:
> Ed Gerck wrote:
>
> I think this document has serious flaws and should be recalled.
>
> ...
>
> Thus, the document is misleading in its use of the word trust and
> should either be changed throughout so that "trust" reads
> authorization (for example) and correcting other logical problems or
> should not be submitted to the IETF. In any case, it should be
> recalled as it is.
>
> As a procedural matter, anyone can submit a draft on more or less
> anything to the IETF. Drafts that purport to be from a working group
> have a name beginning 'draft-ietf-<wgname>'; these, in general, require
> the assent of the chair, which in turn is based on a number of factors,
> including the status and direction of the working group. This
> particular draft is 'draft-angelos-spki-keynote-00.txt'; as such, it's
> an individual contribution. Over time, it may or may not become
> a working group product; in any event, eventual publication depends
> on approval by the IESG. It's certainly relevent enough to spki
> to discuss on this mailing list and/or at IETF meetings. For now,
> it's quite premature to speak of recalling the document; Blaze et al.
> are certainly entitled to their own opinions.
>
I agree 100% with your words above but my objection did not intend at
any moment to target or rate the draft's usefullness, relevance or
right to be submitted. Rather, it very specifically actually aimed at
preserving the draft from early dismissal, by observing that a
*single* flaw disallowed the paper's methodology -- which could be
corrected by a preciser technical choice of words. So much was clearly
written.
The draft gives the impression that it calculates trust predicates
-- which would ban the use of boolean logic -- while the draft is
based on boolean logic. Hence, it is not self-consistent and is
misleading in its current form. In fact, it is also not consistent
with the current terminology used in the very work it aims to support
-- SPKI.
Thus, without any semantic evaluation of it, I suggested that the draft
could be made self-consistent (also in relationship to SPKI, cf other
msgs) if that single flaw would be eliminated.
Thus, my suggestion that the draft be recalled was not a negation of
its submission rights but actually supportive of its right to be
eventually useful.
Cheers,
Ed
______________________________________________________________________
Dr.rer.nat. E. Gerck egerck@novaware.cps.softex.br
http://novaware.cps.softex.br
--- Visit the Meta-Certificate Group at http://mcg.org.br ---
Follow-Ups:
References: