At 8:58 AM +0000 10/28/97, Lutz Donnerhacke wrote:
* John W. Noerenberg wrote:
[Goal: Document the format]
However, adding new ideas that are not in any implementation will slow us
down, changing old ideas which are already used in common will slow us
down. If anyone starts down those paths, I'll ask you, politely, to
refrain.
IMHO: We can't document features or bugs made by a company while we are
working on the draft. We can't document bugs as features. Several
implementation flaws of PGP 5.x must be cleared in this draft. Otherwise,
several people will leave the WG and protest.
It sounds as though you are agreeing with me. If there is no rough
consensus on a particular aspect of the format, it won't be included. If
there is, it will.
Since we agree, we'll get along just fine. <g>
"Rough consensus" is my assessment of the will of the WG. That is my
perogative as chairman. I'll use whatever means I deem appropriate to
obtain consensus. The IESG agreed to have me chair this WG because I have
enough experience in the IETF to know how other WG chairman have done this,
because I have a reputation for being fair-minded, and because I was
foolish enough to agree to take the job.
You are free to disagree with my assessment and take it up with the IESG,
in particular, Jeff Schiller, the Security Area Director who monitors the
progress of this WG. That is you perogative. If you think I am running
this group badly, please do tell me, or tell Jeff, if you are more
comfortable with that. I will always welcome your comments. I may not
take your advice, but I'm sure I'll be better off, and more importantly,
the WG will be better off for my hearing your views.
My goal for this WG is to produce an implementable, and widely implemented
protocol for crytpographic messages, based on what we call "PGP". Clearly,
what "PGP" is has come to mean different things to different people. That
makes our work to find a common ground all the more crucial.
As much as possible, this discussion must remain apolitical and without
philosophical rants. We are here to make decisions about the
implementation of cryptographic messages. We must recognize that we may
disagree with some legitimate uses of cryptography. But if there is a
legitimate need, then we must seek to allow it. If we fail to do that
constituencies on which wide acceptance of this protocol depend will not
accept it, and it will fail to gain standard status.
That can happen despite our best work. But with our best efforts, we put
aside philosophical differences and see what is the widest applicability of
our protocol within the bounds of good engineering and design. It will be
implemented. It will be accepted. We will acheive our goal.
john w noerenberg, ii
jwn2(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com
pager: jwn2(_at_)pager(_dot_)qualcomm(_dot_)com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"The great man is he who in the midst of the crowd keeps
with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude."
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Self Reliance", 1841
--------------------------------------------------------------------