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

Re: The IETF 56 - PKIX Agenda


Todd,

We've had this discussion before, but for the edification of newcomers to the list, I guess it must be revisited:

Paul - as someone else that has had run-ins with the management of
PKIX  - what Anders commentary was relevant to was the
operational integrity of this WG and the people that either impugn that or
make it real.

As I noted in my response to Anders, people who do not contribute constructively to WG activities are in a poor position to complain.

The issue is not Steve, the issue is that there is no change in the
management of this WG and has been none for so long that claims that the
existing chairs are squatters are getting harder and harder to refute. In
fact without change through the management of the WG, there will come a time
when even the most stupefied idiot will see this as well and at that point
the rest of the WG starts to look like a bunch of skinned fish.

Over time you have been of two minds o this topic. Sometime you state that it's not about me, but at other times you have made it clear that I, as an individual, am the target of your complaints. In any case, the IESG is empowered to make the determination of when there isn a need to change WG leadership. Involuntary changes have taken place in the past, but there have also been examples of one person chairing a WG for a very long time.

This WG like all other standards body WG's must espouse itself to the higher
vision of fair play, not in getting a select few protocols to elevated
status and that is the net-net of it.

All standards bodies with which I am familiar make choices about what work they pursue and which proposals they endorse when there are competing proposals, Your notion of fair play, as articulated recently on the POISED mailing list, calls for the IETF to publish anything that it put before it, which is not at all consistent with the operation of other standards bodies. If a standards body fails to make architectural choices, the result is a proliferation of standards that fail to ensure interoperability, and that is the opposite of what a standards body should do.

As to intentional or unintentional flames, they happen and that's life.

True

As to what to do about the problem - I would propose that unless PKIX can
find new people willing to stand as its chair that it has become a
"permanent edifice", and that it needs to be shutdown and its projects
shuttled to other WG's for completion.

The IESG makes the determination of when a WG should cease operation. You have tried to persuade them to change the leadership of this WG in the past, to no avail, and then you tried to persuade folks to change the operating procedures of the IETF, having failed in your original quest.