Deciding on how to proceed with DPD/DPV Was: WG Last Call CLOSED: DPD/DPV Requirements

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

Thanx Steve,

Your phrase "the rest of us" indicates that I am the only PKIX'er who have
doubts regarding the validity of the DPD/DPV-effort.  I won't argue with that
as I have no proofs for the opposite, but rather base my view on information
gathered from other communities, drafts etc.   But please continue reading...

Long-term suggestion
------------------------
A problem with the e-mail-list approach including "rough consensus",
is that most people are rather timid, and do not particularly enjoy getting
publicly bashed.  Due to this fact, I believe it could be of some value to
add a voting-system to the IETF-mailing lists, where a list-member could
send a vote on a certain topic without being exposed on the list.  Then an
admittedly sensitive topic like "Should we continue the DPD/DPV effort",
could be voted on, and you would not only get a ratio of Yes and Noes,
but also a clear indication on how many who cares about a subject at all.
The suggested purpose of this would in no way be changing anything in the
IETF-process rules, but to gather additional input to critical decisions.

Short-term DPD/DPV-action
--------------------------------
Anyway, I believe it would be most appropriate and in everybody's
interest if the authors created a short rationale showing why the
DPV/DPD-effort should be continued in the light of recent advances
by competing efforts like XKMS.

Even in the security area there is a huge "cemetery" of technically
wonderful(?) standards-efforts that the market rejected, several
due to the existence of another system. PCT/SSL, S-HTTP/HTTPS,
and SPA/3D Secure belong to this latter category.

regards
Anders Rundgren

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stephen Kent" <kent@xxxxxxx>
To: "Anders Rundgren" <anders.rundgren@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 01:42
Subject: Re: WG Last Call CLOSED: DPD/DPV Requirements


Anders,

I'm sure we all appreciate your efforts to save the rest of us from 
wasting our time on DPV/DPD. Your message seems to indicate that you 
don't object to the rest of us continuing to work on this if we see 
fit.

Thanks,

Steve