RE: charter revisions

[Peter Williams <peterw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think its irrelevant that particular
folks do not wish to do any work
on a potential work topic. Personally,
I have done little or no work on several PKIX
work items for years, their being
largely irrelevant to the Internet
deployment community. 

I did not feel it appropriate to seek to stop others 
however, or voice my personal prejudice toward 
their work area. In the future, these standards
may be very important baselines, as things catch
up to some of our visions.

If there is constituency to do the logotype work,
then let it happen. I cannot judge
whether the material on logotypes is legitimate
or secure, until I see IDs and active WG/list discussion
on actual proposals. 

I do know broadly the underlying issue is pertinent to many current
deployment matters across the world, including internationl
char sets issues where, culturally, unique graphical 
chars are created for an idea/name, and as DNS 
names/attributes/graphical-chars and 509 converge in the hands 
of the business known as VeriSign. 

Personally, I see the  engineering topic as wider than logotypes; its 
about the use of graphic symbols in a non-Roman way of thinking about
identifiers, names and the forms of reliance. To
me this is all very exciting, as a cultural issue set relevant 
to global uptake enters that is little addressed 
in Western-dominated ISO/IETF standards. 

If the chairs are tired, then replace the 
chairs at an appropriate milestone. I dont think anyone 
would think any worse of our chairs for ceding the floor, after
so many years of sterling service. Personally, I'd keep
both of our chairs, but thats for them to decide.

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Myers [mailto:myers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 10:34 AM
To: stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxxxxx; Stephen Kent
Cc: Steve Hanna; ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx
Subject: RE: charter revisions



All,

I agree with Stephen Farrell and Steve Hanna that logotypes are out of
scope.  These needs are better addressed by other forums.  Let's focus the
WG's remaining energy on resolving DPV/DPD issues.

Mike


> On Thursday, August 30, 2001 2:35 AM Stephen Farrell wrote in part:
> . . .
> Steve (K),
>
> I'd have to agree with Steve H, though maybe not as strongly.
> My suggestion would be to limit the additional items to the
> dpd/dpv.


> On  Wednesday, August 29, 2001 2:01 PM Steve Hanna wrote in part:
>
> . . . I don't think PKIX should do any work on the
> logotype extension. I know that there is a demand for this from
> marketing folks, but I don't believe that we should standardize it
> unless it can be used securely. This does not seem possible.