Branching off from the interminable "justifiable changes" thread....
--On onsdag, desember 21, 2005 23:54:56 -0800 Cullen Jennings
<fluffy(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
Related to how much the charter pre-supposes the solution, the sentence
that "Public keys needed to validate the signatures will be stored
in the responsible identity's DNS hierarchy." seems like a pretty heavy
constraint on the possible solutions and one that some proposals disagreed
with.
I think this is part of "divide and conquer" that is generally argued to be
an useful strategy in the IETF: once we buckle down and start writing
specs, we're documenting one approach, with one set of advantages and
disadvantages, and are trying to prove that *this approach* is feasible. We
did that to (I believe) OSPF, IPNG after the "pick one" round, PKIX (vs
SPKI), IM when it was split into SIMPLE and the 2 alternatives (with XMPP
being a late 4th) and so on. Each of these groups could regard the "what
are the alternatives" question as out of scope.
I think that's a good way to get things out the door in a reasonable
timeframe; I also think that the IETF at the moment lacks venues for the
(probably interminable) discussions about what approaches to a problem
exists and whether there are non-chartered alternatives that are worth
following up - but I think the approach of chartering a WG to look at one
and only one approach is a reasonable one.
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf