Perhaps it is just me but I find the two assertions implicit/explicit in
your messages to be incompatible:
1) That identity is a topic that the IETF has failed to do useful work
on in the past
2) That the organizers of the BOF have need of more extensive input from
those who have failed to do productive work on the topic before
proceding.
While learning lessons from past failures is an important part of the
design process this does not appear to be the type of input into the
procedings that you appear to have in mind.
It is reasonable to tell the builders of the new bridge to ask the
architects of the old one why it fell down. It is completely
unreasonable to tell the builders of the new bridge to ask the
architects of the old one how to build the new bridge and wait on their
reply.
This BOF is not the only initiative underway in this space. The internet
is under attack, phishing is a form of identity theft. So working out
how to fit theft proof credentials into the Internet infrastructure is
an important problem.
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On
Behalf Of Dave Crocker
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)
My immediate concern is that we know better than to
conduct this
sort of BOF in this sort of manner.
What sort of manner is that, Dave?
I ask a serious question and I get a sarcastic reply.
That's a great
way to have a productive conversation.
1. You are right. My only excuse is that I felt/feel I had
made two postings that largely already answered your
question, and your query reflected none of that content. So
the sarcasm was a reaction to having to repeat myself.
See:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg40484.html
and, of course:
<http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg40496.html>.
2. Other than having the opening tone be questionable, the
note very much *did* provide content intended to be strictly
productive.
The proponents of this BOF are following the community's documented
procedures [1]. What I'm hearing is that there is a
underlying problem
with the adequacy of those procedures.
That's a worthy discussion, but my real concerns are the
realities surrounding
this type of BOF for this type of topic.
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.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf