RE: Security requirements for identification

["Tony Li" <Tony.Li@procket.com>]

Hmmm....  I suppose that I should respond.  ;-)

Yes, I think that that some kind of consensus on the properties
of identifiers is a necessity.  There is a long discussion
to get there.  Could we get rough consensus on it?  Yes, I think
so, but it might be very rough.  And it might take a very long
time.  Certainly the discussions within our design team have taken
awhile and that's with a much smaller number of people.  It may
well be faster to start the discussion with the output of one of
the design teams, so that the discussion can revolve around an
entire design, rather than effectively throwing open design discussions
to the entire WG.  I'm flexible in this regard.

However, as a Loyal Opponent of Bureaucracy, I have to question
whether this needs to be a document.  And whether this needs to
be an official WG document, given that it will not become end
product.

In the Good Olde Days, the IETF use to be far more cooperative than it
is today.  Some of that was undoubtedly due to the money grubbing
effects that were introducd by the bubble.  However, with the 
bubble behind us, I would very much like to see if we can
recapture that cooperative spirit and avoid some of the
unnecessary squabbling that goes on.  IMHO, having dueling
drafts is one of the more destructive forces against cooperation.
As soon as there is a draft, the authors have a 'position', and
they need to defend it.  And the squabbling begins.

In the Good Olde Days, the WG chair was a neutral discussion
leader and tried to establish consensus by ensuring that 
differing points of view were represented in the work output
and that the group came to rough consensus on very small points
in a gradual manner.  This is not the only way that these things
can happen, but a reminder of what once was.  I leave it to the
WG to choose the best path.

Yours in cooperation,
Tony