Re: Proposed LTANS WG Charter

[Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>]

Harald:

Two archive proposals have been made to the PKIX working group.  At the 
IESG Retreat, we decided that just adding additional work items to the PKIX 
charter.  Since there are two proposals, I am not worried about this 
becoming an investigative group.  The investigation will be figuring out 
the portions of the two proposals that have a constituency.

The notary is less clear.  If others are concerned too, we could back off 
to a requirements document in this area.  Then, the requirements document 
serve as the basis for an updated charter.  I am not sure this really helps 
since the investigation will mostly be in the area of requirements.

Russ

At 02:48 PM 9/8/2003 -0700, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> --On 8. september 2003 16:46 -0400 Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
>
> > Attached is a proposed charter for a new Working Group.  Please let me
> > know if you have any concerns with it.
>
> In Ted Hardie's terminology, this sounds like an "investigative group" - 
> trying to figure out what the problem is so that we can make protocols 
> that help.
>
> I see lots of business decisions being made by people who provide these 
> services, which the IETF can't and shouldn't dictate - it's not clear to 
> me how the balance between specifiying protocols and specifying business 
> models is going to work out here. And the protocol work might be rather 
> small, in the end ("just" reuse some access protocol like WEBDAV, and 
> specify how signature information and transformation history information 
> is stored and signed in the datastore, perhaps).
>
> But that might be just me worrying.
>
>                Harald