Re: Motions before the WG

[Denis Pinkas <Denis.Pinkas@xxxxxxxx>]

Todd,

As Carlisle said: "I've told myself multiple times not to jump into this
thread, and I refuse to get dragged into a long back-and-forth discussion."

So I will not jump for long and I do not have enough time available 
(as you seem to have) to sustain long discussions.

Your criticisms to the co-chairs are hidding a point which is major to you 
only. 

> (...)  I am personally one of those people that has
> suffered on the commercial side because PKIX refused to vet a particular
> technology. One I personally believe is superior to the TSP that is what
> this WG is currently pushing.

Instead of vague statements like this one, let us be very precise. 

The TSP (Time-Stamping Protocol) document is not a document that 
"this WG is currently pushing". It is a document published by the IETF 
as a Proposed Standard, i.e. RFC 3161.

You did not answered to the specific question posted by Russ:
" What individual contribution was posted?  Can you give the URL to the 
message in the working group archive that requests that the working group 
consider it?  Did it result in a discussion?"

As far as I know, two years and a half ago, you made a submission to 
the PKIX WG. The header of that document was the following:

PKIX Working Group                                     Michael E. McNeil
Internet Draft                                         GMT
Document: <draft-pkix-bert-00.txt>                     Todd S. Glassey
Category: Informational                                GMT
Expires in six months: 17 November 1999                17 May 1999

                       Basic Event Representation Token
                           <draft-pkix-bert-00.txt>

This document has been presented at the Chicago meeting and when the chairs
(Tim was not chair at that time) asked how many people were interested in
this proposal, only two hands showed up. This support was insufficient
to progress the document in the PKIX working group. As you have been told,
you could (and still can) ask for a BOF and then progress this topic in a
new WG (if there is sufficient interest shown up in that BOF).

If you still fell that your case needs attention, please ask for a BOF,
and/or
attend the SAAG in Salt Lake City or/and send an e-mail to the Security Area
Directors, but in any case, leave the bandwith of the PKIX mailing list for
more useful discussions.

The only reply I am expecting from you is an acknowledgement that until the
next IETF meeting this topic is closed.

Regards,

Denis