-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Crocker [mailto:dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net]
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 10:04 AM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: IETF 65 BOF Announcement: Digital Identity Exchange (DIX)
[snip]
In simplistic (but productive and non-sarcastic) terms, I
think things reduce to
the hurdles that an AD can/should impose prior to approving a
BOF. Some topics
warrant higher hurdles. There is ample basis for viewing DIX
as one of them, IMO.
I think the title of Thomas Narten's draft is particularly
apt, because it
focuses on productivity rather than formal process.
OK, that's a reasonable discussion point. Let me explain where I'm
coming from in approving the request.
I agree that this is a contentious topic. I explained the issues to
several people when I was approached to hold a BOF at the Vancouver
meeting. I didn't approve it then, primarily for the very reasons
you've described. I approved the BOF this time not so much to consider
a working group charter (note that the agenda does not include a "review
charter proposal" item), but as an opportunity for the proponents to
collect input from the broader IETF community in a high bandwidth
environment after they have had a few months of discussion time to focus
their proposal. There *is* a charter proposal floating around, but I
personally believe (and list discussion seems to agree) that there are
still a number of topics to explore before a charter can be seriously
considered. I'm hoping that a BOF will help to identify those topics
and other questions to be answered.
In hindsight I probably should have recommended that the existence of
the mailing list be announced much earlier. Earlier input from people
like yourself, Steve Bellovin, and others who have shared opinions would
be better. Since that didn't happen, though, my goal for the BOF is to
try to capture a list of actions and issues for the proponents to
consider as they developing their proposals. I fully expect that a
second BOF will be required before a working group can be considered.
-Scott-
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf