RE: charter revisions

["Michael Myers" <myers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bob,

Ignoring for a moment the durability of the IPSEC WG, as an IETF WG, PKIX
must eventually close.  Of course, it's the chairs' call as to that precise
timing but towards those considerations, I join those who say that the value
added by addressing logotypes (and concomitantly extending the charter) does
not warrant the energy required to fully address the requirements,
particularly when placed in the context of the WG's predictable closure.

At some point, we should declare victory and go fishing.  In my opinion,
that state is most clearly signaled by closure of the DPV/DPD issues.
Beyond that, I look forward to various other fora to step forward.
Basically, move the feast.

In my individual opinion as a WG participant, logotypes are no more
technically fundamental to PKIX's mission than, say, the use of Subject
Directory Attributes to convey clearance constraints.  In fact, if someone
were to put the two on equal terms and call for a vote, I'd go for the
latter.  What Dave Fillingham et. al. put together deserves far broader
exposure than it's received to date.  My sense is that such considerations
would have longer-reaching impact than logotypes.

But that's just my opinion.  I could be wrong.

Mike


Michael Myers
t: +415.819.1362
e: mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
w: http://www.traceroutesecurity.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Jueneman [mailto:bjueneman@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 1:11 PM
>
> . . . is there any evidence that  the WG is running out of energy?