Re: WG Last Call CLOSED: DPD/DPV Requirements

["Anders Rundgren" <anders.rundgren@xxxxxxxxx>]

Tim Polk wrote:

    "As there has been no discussion on the list regarding the DPD/DPV 
    requirements document I have forwarded it to Jeff and Steve.    We have 
    obsessed long enough, and there will be lots of opportunities to grind your 
    favorite axe on the protocol specs."

May I start swinging my "favorite axe", before people begin wrestling
another 24 months over this subject?

The market-leaders in the form of VeriSign (including esteemed
PKIX'er Phillip Hallam-Baker), Microsoft, IBM, as well as the
Open Source community have clearly shown that they are focusing
their efforts on XML-based schemes including PKI-based such.
XML-Dsig is really a huge success if you look at recent "design-ins".

And XKMS, which is already shipping, is AFAIK a "DP*"-solution.

IMO, it does not matter much if DPV/DPD will be "better" than
XKMS, as the market does not have this "granularity" in general.
That XKMS has a head start is considerably more important.

Note that this is not one of those dreary "XML is better than ASN.1"-
discussions, but a serious attempt to save energy, talent, time, and
money for other, hopefully more fruitful design-activities.

Naturally the IETF-PKIX chairs are free to ignore that the landscape
has changed since the DPD/DPV-effort was initiated, but I believe
that individual participants should not.

As similar situation occurred in 1995, when Microsoft pulled the plug
on their proprietary MSN-system the day before launch(!), when they
reluctantly realized that "The Internet has won".

That was in my opinion a very bold, and vigorous move that certainly
paid-off in the long-run.

Anders Rundgren