I am also in favor of adopting TAM as a working group item, although like Stephen, I would also have liked it to be in its own WG.
I am less than enthusiastic about the current proposal, as I don't think it addresses everything we need on the one hand, and is too complicated on the other.
But first priority is to find a venue for this work, and if it can't be TAM, it should be PKIX.
After that we can argue the relative merits of TAMP and STAMP :-) Yoav On Dec 6, 2007, at 12:21 AM, Robert Kisteleki wrote:
Stephen Farrell wrote:Iff a new WG isn't possible, then I agree that pursuing TAM in PKIX is best. (A consequence being that PKIX will quite possibly not end until well into its mid-teens:-() If doing TAM in PKIX ends up being the consensus, I think a secondary issue would be whether or not CCC should be in PKIX or SMIME or is in fact just too complicated. (TAMP as it stands is also maybe a bit over complicated for simpler use cases.)Not a problem. The next step then will be the development of STAMP (Simple Trust Anchor Management Protocol) :-)RobertBasically, that's a +1 with non-trivial caveats, maybe about a +0.25:-) Stephen.