[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Motions before the WG


Todd,

At 08:43 AM 11/23/01 -0800, you wrote: 
My apologies to all - I have to run for a couple of days so I will not be to
spend the time to craft my responses to the last couple of retorts to the
proposals I have made.

Oh - But I do intend to respond - Just give me a day or so.

Please don't bother. There is no point continuing this thread, since there is clear consensus on the list. You are the only one who believes the PKIX WG should be compelled to accept every "properly formatted draft". You are the only one who believes the PKIX WG should accept and promote a document that the vast majority of WG participants do not support, based on the marketing needs of the submitter.

I understand that the failure of BERT to progress within PKIX cost you funding. However, that is *not* the fault of the group or the chairs. It was your responsibility to build consensus within the group. You were permitted to present the draft in the PKIX group at the Oslo meeting, weren't you? You were unable to build support within the WG for this specification, so it did not progress in PKIX. That is the way the process works.

If you wish to pursue this further, I strongly suggest you take this matter up with the two Security Area Directors. (The ADs are Jeff Schiller and Marcus Leech; I have cc'ed them on this message, so you won't need to look up their email addresses.) IETF Working Group chairs serve at the pleasure of the ADs. If you can convince them that Steve and I are the problem, they have the power to rectify the situation. If you can convince them that the IETF process is hopelessly flawed, they are in a much better position to influence the IESG to make the appropriate changes.

Now, I would like to see the group get back to the important work at hand. We have some very important documents in front of the group, especially the DPD/DPV requirements and specification drafts. Let's get the discussion back to the technical content this group is chartered to deliver.

Thanks,

Tim Polk

Todd
----- Original Message -----
From: "Denis Pinkas" <Denis.Pinkas@xxxxxxxx>
To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx>; "Tim Polk" <tim.polk@xxxxxxxx>; "Stephen Kent"
<kent@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 7:40 AM
Subject: Re: Motions before the WG


> 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
>