Subject: RE: Security requirements for identification

From: "Tony Li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 10:42:58 -0700

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

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 21:47:16 +0200

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

Thanks! :-)

> so, but it might be very rough.

I think we need a point to start at anyway.

>  And it might take a very long

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.

> be an official WG document, given that it will not become end

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.

> 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 -