I do not agree with Bob on this.
Justification: v3 means no change to older (conformant) PEM system, and
interworking
at the v1 service is assured between systems. v1 (or default to
be precise)
PEM procedures may continue to be used with v3 certificates.
I do not thing this should be a topic for a new group: the topic is
(a) as v3 relates to PEM, already fully covered in the proposed std
(b) fully within the PEM WG charter.
If there are new work items, to address non-v1 uses of v3, or to upgrade
PEM procedures to use the std extensions, he can petition the chair,
as I did.
We have received appeals and comment to be a more disciplined and
productive WG. lets start with the basic model of respecting the
chair's role when it comes to the agenda and procedure.
The problem here is that this isn't how IETF working groups are supposed to
function. IETF working groups are not at all like the standing committees of
ISO, ITU, and ANSI. They are set up differently, they operate differently, and
they terminate differently.
IETF working groups are set up with a specific work item or items in mind. (The
fewer the better -- groups with long lists of work items or groups with study
items rather than work items don't get approved. I'm speaking as an Application
Area Directorate member here who reviews these things, and I know what will fly
and what will not.) They perform that work and then they stop meeting after
the work is on the standards stack. The group may resume if changes are needed
before going to draft standard. However, after the work is at draft the group
is shut down -- the move to standard is not a group activity. The mailing list
remains after the group is gone as a forum for implementors.
Adding new work items partway through is frowned upon, and is usually only
allowed when it is clear that something important was missed -- something so
important that it may adversely impact the implementation and use of the work
the group has done. (MIME clearly falls into this category, although I now wish
that a new group had been started.)
New work items, and this is clearly a new item that goes beyond the
charter, are usually handled by starting a new group.
Working groups are not generally expected to last more than a year. According
to this simple yardstick this group's demise is long overdue.
Examples are easy to come by. The IETF-822 working group that produced MIME no
longer exists now that MIME is at draft. Yet there is all sorts of activity
going on with MIME -- in other groups. The IETF-SMTP group that produced the
SMTP extensions no longer exists now that the initial set of extensions is at
draft. Yet there are at least five additional SMTP extensions in the works --
in other groups. The IETF-MADMAN group that produced the MADMAN MIBs is
inactive, awaiting restart to get the documents to draft standard. And so on.
These are not my rules -- I'm just stating what I understand the general
policies to be.
Ned