Amanda, if I understand Ned's comment, it would appear that having publically
put a proposal on the table and offered to write up the necessay changes, you
have now privately withdrawn your proposal? It might be nice if you would
explain your reasoning to the rest of the group.
Please see my original response to Amanda's proposal. The proposal was unclear
about what, if anything, would be removed from MIME/PEM in the realm of
non-cert-based services. The only thing that was clear was that key selectors
would go and so would any policy statements (I don't there are any of these to
remove). I read the proposal and I could not tell what the new requirements
would be.
I phrased my initial two responses, and by extension every subsequent response,
in terms of an assumption that this meant that non-cert-based forms would be
removed.
Suffice it to say that I have been told privately that my assumption was
incorrect. There was no intention of requiring cert-based services here.
I wish to emphasize that this was nothing but an assumption on my part, and I
stated this clearly in my responses. The proposal did NOT say that the other id
forms would be removed. As such, nothing whatsoever has been withdrawn, either
privately or publicly. It has merely been clarified. I wish it had been
clarified publicly, but I suspect that Jim and Amanda are busy right now
working out the details rather than engaging in this debate.
Ned, since I was the one who first proposed the changes that Amanda described,
I'm not sure that I understand how you can conclude that such a proposal is no
longer on the table. Do I have to hold my mouth in a certain way, or say
"Simon
says?"
I was referring only to Amanda's specific proposal and to the offer to revise
the documents accordingly. I realize that you have made your own proposals, but
I wasn't talking about them, and it now appears that Amanda's proposal is not
at all the same as what you proposed.
Or do only certain people have standing to propose changes? If so, could you
provide a list of who you consider the Vestal virgins to be?
Anyone can propose changes, and if they achieve consensus they probably should
be implemented. However, as coauthor of the specification I have the additional
right to refuse to implement or tolerate changes I think are unacceptable, and
if they are made over my objections I have not only the right but the absolute
duty to walk away from this and do a competing proposal. (Sulking, as you
previously characterized it, is not part of the game that I play.)
Similarly, Amanda has the right to propose her own set of changes which, as it
appears, have met with nothing but acceptance in the group (now that I've
changed my position on clarification of what is going to be done).
We now need to wait and see what emerges from all this...
Ned