Re: Security requirements for identification

[Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

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

Thanks! :-)

> 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.

I think we need a point to start at anyway.

>  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.

I am just trying to get a feeling of what people think. I do agree that 
working on the output of the DTs might be the fastest way, on the other 
hand, whatever we could do in parallel is just an added value.

> 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.

It could become a product, question is if that would help us. I will be 
the first to agree to cut down the amount of drafts published, so if we 
can do without, the better. I just have a feeling that we lack actual 
text to discuss around. We are just adding more ideas, but not 
producing real consensus one way or the other.

> 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.

I agree with the above. I have at least _tried_  to be neutral, maybe 
even to neutral to get the discussion going in a direction. But from 
above, I think this would also be easier on my part if we actually had 
real text to discuss around.

But I have no strong feeling one way or the other on the original 
question.

Best regards,

- - kurtis -

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.2

iQA/AwUBP3ndx6arNKXTPFCVEQJu8QCgrbj5uTfbhbO/6fkMQ+MuKiPg+QEAoPa0
zCV52StE3RrhRBiHeVmpOAOR
=XeGK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----