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

[Peter Williams <peterw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

We have to be balanced.

DPV/DPD will not suddenly break through a notional barrier
that holds back adoption of digital signatures: we have
PEM+ out there in practice, in the midst of Microsoft 2000
and Microsoft Office XP, and despite the excellence of
that offering, subscriber reaction is luke warm.

I'm personally at the crux of my own Phd work, which asserts 
that what we lack is, actually, a means of limiting certain effects
that our signature mechanisms now provide - for the lack of
such limiting function is a major cause of user failure to 
now adopt our abundant technology.

I dont happen to focus in my research work on DPV, but I do recognise
that DPV represents within IETF the best means to accomplishing
a more refined notion of trust (via certs), as a DPV service will 
enable a highly subjective evaluation of cert paths - a feature that 
may overcome user reluctance to actually go out, multiply,
and even use digital signatures.

Peter.


-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Kent
To: Anders Rundgren
Cc: ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx
Sent: 7/17/02 2:04 AM
Subject: Re: Deciding on how to proceed with DPD/DPV  Was: WG Last Call
CLOSED: 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