Paul, If the Security ADs are willing to swallow such text, I would
love to include it.
Stefan Santesson
Senior Program Manager
Windows Security, Standards
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ietf-pkix@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ietf-
> pkix@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul Hoffman
> Sent: den 31 januari 2008 19:28
> To: iesg@xxxxxxxx; ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: WG Review: Recharter of Public-Key Infrastructure (X.509)
> (pkix)
>
>
> At 10:15 AM -0500 1/31/08, IESG Secretary wrote:
> >PKIX Work Plan
> >
> >PKIX will continue to track the evolution of ITU-T X.509 documents,
> >and will maintain compatibility between these documents and IETF PKI
> >standards, since the profiling of X.509 standards for use in the
> >Internet remains an important topic for the working group.
>
> Maybe add: "In other words, the PKIX WG will probably last forever
> because the ITU-T X.509 work will probably last forever." Yes, this
> is a bit sarcastic, but is essentially true. If the IETF wants to
> have permanent WGs, PKIX should be one of them for the reason given
> in this proposed charter text.
>
> >PKIX will pursue new work items in the PKI arena if working group
> >members express sufficient interest, and if approved by the cognizant
> >Security Area director.
>
> Maybe add: "In other words, the PKIX WG will probably last forever
> because the interest by many active individuals in extending and
> enhancing the use of PKIX formats and protocols will probably last
> forever." Yes, this is a bit sarcastic, but is essentially true. If
> the IETF wants to have permanent WGs, PKIX should be one of them for
> the reason given in this proposed charter text.
>
> Editorial:
>
> The term "standards track RFC" should probably be "standards-track
> RFC" (although RFC 2026 is not consistent on this). In the
> milestones, "PROPOSED" should not be all caps.
>
> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> --VPN Consortium