[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: KeyNote draft available
I suspect that the term "recalled" is a problem here, when in fact
what I think Ed is asking for is a rapid replacement with a revised
version to cover up the current flawed version with a better version.
This process is not unusual in any case, and perhaps this manner of
speaking about it will diffuse the disagreement;-)...
Cheers...\Stef
>From your message Sat, 14 Mar 1998 02:33:55 -0300:
}
}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: