Subject: Straw poll, round 2

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 11:20:40 -0400

PIC

For reasons others have already pointed out.
---------------------- Forwarded by Peter Maricle/US/3Com on 04/20/2001 11:19 AM
---------------------------

"Paul Hoffman / VPNC" <[email-masked]> on 04/18/2001 02:13:07 PM

Sent by:  "Paul Hoffman / VPNC" <[email-masked]>

To:   [email-masked]
cc:    (Peter Maricle/US/3Com)
Subject:  Straw poll, round 2

As discussed at the Minneapolis meeting, we need to take the straw
poll again. My apologies for taking so long to get to it. We need to
either choose between PIC and GetCert for the product of this Working
Group, or to actively decide that the Working Group does not want to
create a protocol.

For this straw poll, please respond to this message, and simply say
"PIC" or "GetCert" or "No new protocol". If you wish, you can say
why, but please state your preference first. Please respond within
two weeks from today.

Note that this is a straw poll, not a "50%+1" straight vote. In the
IETF tradition, the WG chairs will view the results and look for
consensus. We (the chairs) will report back to the list soon after
the two weeks are up.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 15:13:40 -0700 (PDT)

At times reading the IPSRA mailing list is a little like following the
Florida re-count...

May I interrupt the regularly scheduled program for a question relating to
work items?

Over the last two meetings, we've thrown out a variety of ideas on how to
move forward. At one point it was suggested that some sort of merger of
PIC and GetCert might be possible. We've talked about an updated GetCert
draft, or perhaps an CMP/EAP draft. 

What are the obstacles, if any, to getting this work done? Do the authors
feel it's not a good idea? Not have time? Perhaps lack some expertise that
might be supplied? Not sure if anyone will implement the result? 

Since the purpose of a Working Group is to do work, I'm curious to
understand why more work isn't being done. For my part, the issue is that
this area requires more PKI knowledge than I possess. Also, I'm told that
temporary certs may pose some tricky problems that PKI people understand
and which I obviously don't (has to do with when you delete old expired
certs, load on PKI infrastructure, etc.). 

Back to our regularly scheduled election coverage...