pem-dev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: point of order. (was: re: limitations of mime-pem transformation)

1994-12-30 10:51:00
Steve Kent <kent(_at_)bbn(_dot_)com> writes:
Finally, to be quite blunt, one IAB member and two IESG members have 
told me over the last few weeks (without solicitation) that they view 
the spec in question as very bad.  The term "shit" was used by at 
least one of these folks.  I take this sort of concern, espressed 
by experienced, knowledgable people, very seriously. 

Well, gosh.  Were they more specific?  Are they willing to make their 
criticisms public to the working group?  I would certainly hope so--if they 
aren't, then there is more political mire involved than even I would have 
expected, and we should just hang it up now.  I am willing to take their 
concerns seriously if they are willing to make them public, but I have no 
patience for anonymous (and worse, unspecified) criticism of a public 
document.

I have so far seen no proposals regarding what we should be doing instead of 
the current proposal, except for the suggestions to drop key selectors and use 
the public key or a digest of it instead (a suggestion which I support).

If the spec is indeed as bad as you and your unnamed IAB & IESG members seem 
to believe it is, then please describe to us what we should do.  Merely 
shooting down other peoples' work gets us nowhere, as can be seen in *copious* 
detail by reading through the archives of this working group over the past 
couple of years.  It's amazing we have a proposal at all, to be blunt.

If, after years of work, this working group cannot come up with an acceptable 
way to allow PEM to coexist with MIME, then in my opinion it should be 
dissolved, and let the marketplace figure it out.  According to the charter of 
the WG, it has no goals (the description of the WG is in fact a description of 
PEM itself, not a working group).  If we have no goals, cannot agree on the 
problems we are trying to solve, or the ways to solve them, then there is no 
reason to continue.

RFC 1421 ff. are sufficient for non-MIME environments--no one disputes this, 
to my knowledge.  If we're not going to go any further, doesn't that mean that 
we're done?


Amanda Walker
InterCon Systems Corporation


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>