TAM as a new WG item?

[Stephen Kent <kent@xxxxxxx>]

At the PKIX meeting this week we hosted a presentation on trust 
anchor management (TAM).  The presentation described a rich trust 
anchor (TA) model and a management protocol expressed in an ASN.1 
syntax.  The model accommodates three types of TAs, and an 
authorization scheme for managing TAs and other signed objects that 
might be associated with a crypto module (a hardware or software 
implementation of crypto capabilities managed by one of more 
administrative entities). The protocol accommodates both online and 
offline (staged delivery) management of a module, i.e., it is 
transport independent and does not require realtime connectivity.

TAM is obviously of interest to PKIX members, as we make use of TAs 
for cert path discovery and validation. However, TAs can be used in 
more general contexts as well, e.g., for directly validating 
signatures on CMS objects. Moreover, the issue of TA management is 
potentially broader than just the X.509 context, i.e., one could 
imagine developing a TA model and protocol that deals with other cert 
types (e.g., PGP) and with public (signature) keys independent of 
certs.  Despite the important role that TAs play in PKIX-based 
implementations, the WG has never adopted a work item to develop a 
model for the management of TAs, nor specified a protocol for remote 
TA management.

At the 69th IETF meeting there was a BoF to explore creating a new WG 
to pursue development of a TA model and associated remote management 
protocol, and a mailing list was established to develop a charter, 
etc.  Tim Polk has decided that there is not critical mass to create 
a separate WG for this purpose. However, Tim is willing to have PKIX 
take on the effort as a new work item. If we do adopt this as a work 
item, we will focus on TAs primarily in the X.509 context,consistent 
with the PKIX charter.

At the WG meeting in Vancouver this week I asked the room if there 
were any objections to PKIX adopting this a work item, given that we 
have permission from Tim to do so. Two folks voiced objections; both 
agreed that pursuing TAM was important, but preferred creation of a 
new WG for the task. However, that option is not on the table at this 
time and thus is not a subject of the straw poll noted below.

So I am calling for a straw poll in PKIX to gauge interest in pursing 
this topic. The poll begins today and will end in two weeks, on 
12/19.  Please examine the presentation slides to get a sense of what 
work has been done already: 
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07dec/slides/pkix-2.pdf

Thanks,

Steve