[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: charter revisions
At 4:44 PM -0700 9/4/01, Michael Myers wrote:
> > These needs are better addressed by other forums.
Such as...?
Such as whomever chooses to stand up the responsibility, or is PKIX going to
go on forever ratifying extension X, protocol Y and policy Z?
History say "the latter".
This role
does not strike me as an engineering activity.
Fully agree. Oh, well.
To the extent these issues remain relevant to the IETF and its governing
bodies, perhaps those superior organizations may wish to consider their
role. In *that* regard, IANA's classic role comes to mind but since so much
of what PKI is and does to an enterprise is intrinsically bound up in
enterprise security policy (as it should be), it's not clear to me that an
IANA-like organization is the best path forward.
IANA is not a body that should pass security standards.
Perhaps, Paul, given your exposure IETF/IESG/IAB organizational issues, you
could propose something?
I did: I supported putting it in the PKIX WG charter. Seeing some
vendor interest, and seeing the PKIX WG does a fair job at putting
out protocols without gaping security holes, and not seeing any other
reputable (or even half-reputable) organization stepping up, I don't
see why it should not be done here. Charter creep is pretty common in
the IETF security area, yes? Should we not fully embrace that?
I fear I've stirred the fire more than I should have.
Spoken like a true Californian at the end of a long, dry summer.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium