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

Re: Deciding on how to proceed with DPD/DPV Was: WG Last CallCLOSED: DPD/DPV Requirements




At 11:20 AM +0200 7/17/02, Anders Rundgren wrote:
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.


Again, thanks for your suggestions on how to improve IETF processes. They will certainly receive due consideration.


Since we have at least 3, and maybe 4, proposals for protocols to satisfy the DPV/DPD requirements, I have complete confidence that there is a sufficient support for continuing the work in PKIX. If it were of no interest, we would have one proposed protocol, at best. As before, if you or others, feel that this is not a good use of your time, then you are free to ignore the activity.

Steve