From mcr@istari.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca Fri Aug 21 21:00:11 1998 Received: from istari.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (istari.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca [209.151.24.30]) by lox.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA11877 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 21:00:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from istari.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca ([[UNIX: localhost]]) by istari.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA09571 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 21:00:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 21:00:09 -0400 (EDT) From: "Michael C. Richardson" Message-Id: <199808220100.VAA09571@istari.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca> Replied: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 20:58:03 -0400 Replied: ""Paul Lambert" perry@piermont.com, smb@research.att.com" From owner-spki@c2.net Fri Aug 21 20: 53:18 1998 Return-Path: Received: from blacklodge.c2.net (blacklodge.c2.net [208.139.36.35]) by lox.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA11648 for ; 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" To: Steve Bellovin 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" 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 on 08/18/98 11:11:33 AM To: "Flanigan, Bill" cc: "'perry@piermont.com'" , Anne Anderson - Sun Microsystems , 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.