Re: Discuss comments on draft-ietf-pkix-logotypes

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>]

--On 18. september 2003 19:21 -0400 Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> 
wrote:

> Margaret:
>
> > As I said in my earlier message, if you and Steve believe that
> > the current text is adequate/correct, I'm okay with it.
>
> Okay.  Thanks.
>
> > I do still have concerns about the appropriateness of having
> > introductory text regarding psychology and branding in a protocol
> > spec.  Do you have any thoughts on that?  It seemed to take quite
> > a while to get to the actual protocol bits...
>
> During development of the document, several people in the PKIX WG wanted
> justification.  This is a remnant of that rationale.  I do not know if it
> is still important, but like the issue raised by Ned on another document
> on today's telechat, it will not cause an implementor to do anything
> wrong.

I'm thinking that this discussion is a clear indication that releasing the 
document without that discussion of psychology would not be in the best 
interests of the Internet; we're clearly converging that it's dangerous to 
use these things without thinking about the psychological factors.

Same argument as I take arguing with Dave Jablon over the BCP stating that 
a certain IPR situation is "unclear" - I want the information to be easily 
accessible to the users who need it, even if it's not a completely "clean 
fit to category".

But that's my style.....

                         Harald