In <36F26494(_dot_)C2144A88(_at_)cis(_dot_)ohio-state(_dot_)edu> Dave Barr
<barr(_at_)cis(_dot_)ohio-state(_dot_)edu> writes:
Time out folks.
This thread is debating a draft which is not yet in the draft at hand.
Let me refer to the article by Charles which started this thread.
The draft that I have prepared therefore tries to solve the problem in
both environments. However, before we get too bogged down in the details
of what I am proposing, I suggest we first establish the proper forum
for this discussion, and the form that it should take. For this, I need
some advice from the various IETF gurus on these lists.
Quite so. Please can we STOP discussing the details, and get the politics
right first. I am disappointed that none of the IETF gurus (esp. those on
the ietf-822 list) have responded with the advice I asked for. Don't the
mail people care? Are they happy that the Usenet list alone should
prepare a draft that affects both news and mail?
1.In the first place, should I aim it at a Draft Standard, or at an
Experimental Protocol? Note that we shall eventually want to refer to it
in the final USEFOR document, which is certainly supposed to be on the
Standards Track, but it might still be useful (and quicker) to have an
Experimental Protocol before then.
It seems to me that given the past, it would be a tough battle to
get in in as a standards-track extension to our core draft (stage 2).
Not only is there disagreement on the need for and architecture of
any digital signature system, the format of the signature is also of hot
debate.
Sure. This is not intended for the Usefor draft. It is an enabling
technology that should be established separately, perhaps even _before_
the main Usefor draft.
There was agreement earlier that Signed Headers were needed for various
applications (signing newgroups and unlocked cancels, verifying the
genuineness of moderated articles, and perhaps even having totally
verifiable hierarchies, though that is clearly further off). There may
also be purely mail applications (datagrams propagated by the mail
transport mechanisms intended to cause actions at remote sites).
We also have a Cancel-Lock draft already prepared, but we agreed not to
promulgate it until a signature mechanism was available to complement it.
My draft is a parallel effort to that Cancel-Lock draft.
My aim is to have a Signed-Headers document that can support various
news/mail applications (examples listed above). It is NOT intended to
define those applications itself - that is why I call it an "enabling
technology" - though it must be capable of supporting a wide range of
applications.
So please can we get the politics sorted out.
Is this an experimental protocol or standards track?
Is it to come out as a -usefor- draft, or an -ietf-822- draft, or a
-lindsey- draft, or do we need a separate IETF working group for it?
Should I establish a separate mailing list - or a list that simply creates
the union of usefor and ietf-822?
Do the mail people want in on the discussions (it is clear by the length
of this thread that the news people do, but that is to be expected since
they have the immediate need for the applications)?
It's fun and exciting to debate neat new ideas, but our goal at present
is to get our core standards document completed, and our next goal is
to get any core extension drafts complete for inclusion in the final
standards-track RFC. Debating complex and controvertial issues
is extremely time consuming, and we cannot afford the time now.
If someone thinks we can get this in as a core extension, fine, finish
the draft and we'll debate it when the next round comes.
--Dave
Your Chair.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Email: chl(_at_)clw(_dot_)cs(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Web:
http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Voice/Fax: +44 161 437 4506 Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5