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

Re: The IETF 56 - PKIX Agenda


At 9:33 PM +0100 3/8/03, Anders Rundgren wrote:
Anders & PKIX WG,

I personally don't care about the motivation or the past. It is past and therefore belongs with the dust. My point is that there seems to be a problem. Instead of working together to solve it and produce a fine technical solution everyone can live with, there is a certain element on this list who is simply not being constructive. I would suspect that for all of us, that our time is valuable. Wasting a commodity that one can never recover seems childish to me.

I am aware that there are personal differences, however, we are all supposed to be adults and professionals. Working with a group means making compromises - sometimes even ones that you don't personally care for. It just goes with the territory. I know it's not easy when the draft of the RFC doesn't have what you want in it. It's painful because you worked so hard. It annoying because you feel that you are right. But I'm sure that the other people on this list worked hard and good valid ideas, too. Sometimes you have to move in increments. Somtimes you don't get what you want at all. That's just how it goes. It's not supposed to devolve in to personal attacks and sarcastic sniping.

There is a place for everything, but this isn't the place for "religious beliefs". Take that to church/mosque/synagog/temple/whatever with you. We're here to build something that the rest of the world needs. Let's get back to the task at hand. If one can't contribute and be constructive, then perhaps its time to "sit this one out".

Hi Jimi,
Actually we have a non-kindergarten problem as well.  That there is
no agenda unfortunately also describes the state of PKIX and its
leadership.  PKIX have many items in the workings that have not
been properly pitted against other solutions and therefore probably
never will get any real support.

One of these things is the PI (permanent identifier) draft, which is
unique in the sense that it does not support *any* existing CAs using such
schemes.  What's even more odd is that the authors and Dr. Kent are
proud of that, due to some more or less religious beliefs that the "market"
(only in Scandinavia encompassing some 10-15M subscribers) are
deliberately violating PKI standards.  That these CAs are 100%
compliant with RFC3039,  Dr. Kent claims depends on that the RFC
authors were PAID by the CAs to make this RFC compliant to their
"lousy" scheme.  But if  RFC3039 were incorrect it should never have
passed the RFC process.  But no one said a word.  As at least one of
the RFC authors is a top scientist, I rather think that it is Dr. Kent and
his tired lot, that are simply obstructing progress for reasons unknown
to me.

Anders

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jimi Thompson" <jimit@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Peter Gutmann" <pgut001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <anders.rundgren@xxxxxxxxx>; <ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 19:19
Subject: Re: The IETF 56 - PKIX Agenda



Hmmm.....you realize of course that we have a far more interesting
phenomenon to study here.  It seems that certain of the PKIX member
have been suddenly time warped back to kindergarten.  We need to do
three things - 1) figure out how to get them back,  2) figure out how
to make money off this thing (I'm thinking pay-per-view) and 3) here
in the States we don't use custard, we use Jello since it's cheaper.


"Anders Rundgren" <anders.rundgren@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

In the absence of a published agenda I take the liberty to create one which I
think could gather some interest :-)

You forgot the main event:

What needs to be done to make PKI work?

   This forum will be open to all PKIX members, and will constitute a large
   pool filled knee-deep with custard [1].  Marquis of Queensberry Rules, but
   with pies substituted for gloves.  Participants are expected to provide
> appropriate clothing. Remaining IETF members will look on in amusement or
dismay, depending on their views on PKI.

Peter.

[1] Adrian Mitchell fans may hold the event in the Royal Albert Hall instead. 


--
Thanks,

Ms. Jimi Thompson, CISSP, Rev.

"If the automobile had followed the same development cycle as the
computer, a Rolls-Royce would today cost $100, get a million miles
per gallon, and explode once a year, killing everyone inside." --
Robert Cringely



--
Thanks,

Ms. Jimi Thompson, CISSP, Rev.

"If the automobile had followed the same development cycle as the computer, a Rolls-Royce would today cost $100, get a million miles per gallon, and explode once a year, killing everyone inside." -- Robert Cringely